Critical Thinking PDF

CHAPTER FOUR BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING Chapter Overview This chapter is about the power of disciplined thinking. It is about learning to think for yourself and being your own person. In many high schools, the emphasis of education tends to be on ―lower-order thinking.‖ Students are simp...

CHAPTER FOUR BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING Chapter Overview This chapter is about the power of disciplined thinking. It is about learning to think for yourself and being your own person. In many high schools, the emphasis of education tends to be on ―lower-order thinking.‖ Students are simply expected to passively absorb information and then repeat it back on tests. In college and universities, by contrast, the emphasis is on fostering ―higher-order thinking‖: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information. As Martin Luther King Jr rightly puts it as ―The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically‖. The main goal of teaching Critical Thinking is therefore, to teach students how to think; that is, how to become independent, self-directed thinkers and learners. It is about the personal empowerment and enrichment that result from learning to use your mind to its fullest potential. In short, it is about critical thinking. In this chapter, we deal with the Meaning, Standards, Principles, Characteristics, Barriers, and Benefits of critical thinking, Chapter Objectives: At the end of this chapter, students will be able to:  Define critical thinking.  Understand the standards of critical thinking.  Appreciate the principles of good argument and critical thinking.  Understand the characteristics of critical thinking.  Identify the barriers of critical thinking.  Recognize the benefits of critical thinking. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 127 Lesson 1: Meaning of Critical Thinking Lesson Overview Critical thinking can be defined as a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims. In this lesson, we will learn the meaning and general picture of critical thinking. Lesson Objectives: After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:  Understand the meaning and general picture of critical thinking. Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think is critical thinking? Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation. In this sense, critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims. Moreover, it helps to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do. However, it does not automatically follow that being intelligent means being able think critically or reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Being smart and intelligent is not sufficient. Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the aim of critical thinking is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 128 The American philosopher, John Dewey, has defined critical thinking as an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds, which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends. In this definition, there are three main points that we should focus on: active, persistent and grounds. The first point is that critical thinking is an ‗active‘ process. By defining critical thinking as an ‗active‘ process, Dewey is contrasting it with the kind of thinking in which you just receive ideas and information from other people – what you might reasonably call a ‗passive‘ process. For Dewey, critical thinking is essentially an active process – one in which you think things through for yourself, raise questions yourself, find relevant information yourself and so on, rather than learning in a largely passive way from someone else. The second point is that critical thinking is persistent and careful consideration. Here, Dewey is contrasting critical thinking with the kind of unreflective thinking we all sometimes engage in. For example, we sometimes jump to a conclusion or make a quick decision without thinking about it. Of course, sometimes, we may have to do this because we need to decide quickly or the issue is not important enough to warrant careful thought, but we often do it when we ought to stop and think – when we ought to persist a bit. However, the most important point in Dewey‘s definition lies in what he said about the ‗grounds which support‘ a belief and the ‗further conclusions to which it tends‘. What Dewey is saying, to express it in a more familiar language, is that what matters are the reasons we have for believing something and the implications of our beliefs. It is no exaggeration to say that critical thinking attaches huge importance to reasoning, to giving reasons and to evaluating reasoning as far as possible. There is more to it than that, but skilful reasoning is a key element. Dewey‘s definition, though it is important, misses some important features of critical thinking. Let us now see the other definition given by Edward Glaser. Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one‟s experience; (2) knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those methods. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 129 If we closely observe Glaser‘s definition, it is immediately obvious that this definition owes a lot to Dewey‘s original definition. Glaser uses the term ‗evidence‘ in place of ‗grounds‘ but otherwise the second sentence is much the same. But there are two points which stands out in this definition. The first sentence speaks about an attitude or disposition to be thoughtful about problems and recognizes that you can apply what he calls ‗the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning‘ with more or less ‗skill‘. The tradition has picked up on both these elements, recognizing that critical thinking is partly a matter of having certain thinking skills. But it is not just a matter of having these skills; it is also a matter of being disposed to use them. Critical thinking combines these habits and abilities in approaching and understanding our experience. The other most famous contributors to the development of the critical thinking tradition is Robert Ennis. He defined critical thinking as reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. Notice that the emphasis on being ‗reasonable‘ and ‗reflective‘ in this definition is similar with the above two definitions. But notice also that Ennis speaks of ‗deciding what to... do‘, which was not explicitly mentioned in the above definitions. So decision-making is an important part of critical thinking in Ennis‘s conception. What we learn from Ennis‘ definition is that when we make a decision, we should be serious about it. The decision may be about purchasing a phone, or it may be about choosing a department, or any other issues. But we should employ critical thinking to make a decision. Here is another important definition of critical thinking is given by Richard Paul: Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. Paul associates critical thinking with reflecting on thoughts. This definition is interesting and somehow looks different from the other definitions given above. It draws attention to a feature of critical thinking on which scholars in the field seem to be largely agreed - that the only realistic way to develop one‘s critical thinking ability is through ‗thinking about one‘s thinking‘ (often called ‗meta-cognition‘), and consciously aiming to improve it by reference to some model of good thinking in that domain. One last definition is worth reviewing. Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 130 argumentation. He argued that critical thinking is an academic competency akin to reading and writing and is of similarly fundamental importance. It is worth unpacking Scriven‘s definition a little. He defines critical thinking as a ‗skilled‘ activity for reasons similar to those mentioned above. He points out that thinking does not count as critical merely because it is intended to be, any more than thinking counts as scientific simply because it aims to be. To be critical, thinking has to meet certain standards, (clarity, relevance, reasonableness and so on), and one may be more or less skilled at this. He defined critical thinking as an ‗active‘ process, partly because it involves questioning and partly because of the role played by meta-cognition. He includes ‗interpretation‘ of texts, speech, film, graphics, actions and even body language, because ‗like explanation, interpretation typically involves constructing and selecting the best of several alternatives, and it is a crucial preliminary to drawing conclusions about complex claims‘. He includes ‗evaluation‘ because ‗this is the process of determining the merit, quality, worth, or value of something‘ and much critical thinking is concerned with evaluating the truth, probability or reliability of claims. The above definitions, though may not give exhaustive definition by themselves, they nevertheless provide an important conception of critical thinking together. Before closing the explication of critical thinking, however, we should focus on the other aspects of critical thinking. Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‗criticocreative‘ thinking. This word is the combination of two words: critical and creative. There are two related reasons for this. The first is that the term ‗critical thinking‘ is sometimes thought to sound rather negative, as though one‘s only interest is in adversely criticizing other people‘s arguments and ideas. This would be a serious mistake since (and this is the second reason) to be good at evaluating arguments and ideas, one often has to be very imaginative and creative about other possibilities, alternative considerations, different options and so on. To be a good judge of issues, it is not enough to see faults in what other people say. You need to base your judgment on the best arguments you can devise in the time available; and this often requires you to think of relevant considerations other than those presented, look at issues from different points of view, imagine alternative scenarios and perhaps find other relevant information – in short, you will need to be quite creative. For By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 131 these reasons, some writers have wanted to speak of ‗criticocreative‘ thinking to emphasize the positive, imaginative aspects of critical thinking. Unfortunately, the result is a rather cumbersome expression so we shall use the term ‗critical thinking‘, which is now so widely used, whilst understanding it in this positive, imaginative sense. In short, critical thinking is a kind of evaluative thinking – which involves both criticism and creative thinking – and which is particularly concerned with the quality of reasoning or argument that is presented in support of a belief, or a course of action. Lesson 2: Standards of Critical Thinking Lesson Overview Critical thinking is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards. But, not every thinking is critical. To identify a critical thinking from the uncritical, we refer to some standards. There is a consensus among philosophers that for thinking to be critical, it has to meet certain standards. Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be considered as normal and acceptable. Among the most important of these intellectual standards are clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and fairness. In this lesson, we will discuss these standards. Lesson Objectives: After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:  Recognize the important intellectual standards of critical thinking. Activity # 2: Dear learners, do you know any standard of critical thinking? How do you identify good critical thinking from bad critical thinking? What basic standards do you think critical thinking should meet? Dear learners, we have seen that the term ‗critical thinking‘ generally refers to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims. It is critical thinking is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards that can be used to identify a critical thinking from the uncritical. Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 132 considered as normal and acceptable. Clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and fairness are some of the most important intellectual standards of critical thinking. Let us discuss these standards in detail. 1) Clarity Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language that is free of obscurity and vagueness. When we construct argument, we should take into consideration or pay close attention to clarity. Before we can effectively evaluate a person‘s argument or claim, we need to understand clearly what the person is saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult because people often fail to express themselves clearly. But 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 do not yet know what it is saying. For example, the question ―What can be done about the education system in Ethiopia?‖ is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person is asking. The question is considering the ―problem‖ to be. A clearer question might be ―What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?‖ Sometimes lack of clarity is due to laziness, carelessness, or a lack of skill. At other times, it results from a misguided effort to appear clever, learned, or profound. As William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, in their classic, ‗The Elements of Style‟, remark that ―Muddiness is not merely a disturber of prose, it is also a destroyer of life, of hope: death on the highway caused by a badly worded road sign, heartbreak among lovers caused by a misplaced phrase in a well-intentioned letter....Only by paying careful attention to language can we avoid such needless miscommunications and disappointments. Critical thinkers, however, not only strive for clarity of language but also seek maximum clarity of thought. To achieve our personal goals in life, we need a clear conception of our goals and priorities, a realistic grasp of our abilities, and a clear understanding of the problems and opportunities we face. Such self-understanding can be achieved only if we value and pursue clarity of thought. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 133  2) Precision Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas are vague and obscures though we think we have precise understanding of them. When we try to meticulous these ideas, we will find that they are imprecise. To get precise understanding, we should pay close attention to details. Everyone recognizes the importance of precision in specialized fields such as medicine, mathematics, architecture, and engineering. Critical thinkers also understand the importance of precise thinking in different contexts. They understand that to cut through the confusions and uncertainties that surround many everyday problems and issues, it is often necessary to insist on precise answers to precise questions: What exactly is the problem we are facing? What exactly are the alternatives? What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? Only when we habitually seek such precision are we truly become critical thinkers. 3) Accuracy Accuracy is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine information. If the ideas and thoughts one processes are not real, then once decision based on wrong and false information will likely to result in distorting realities. John Rawls, in his book entitled as ‗A Theory of Justice‟ argued that truth is the first virtue of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue. Whether an idea is attractive or sophisticated should be abandoned if it is based on false information. Accuracy is about having and getting true information. There is a well-known saying about computers: ―Garbage in, garbage out.‖Simply put, this means that if you put bad information into a computer, bad information is exactly what you will get out of it. Much the same is true of human thinking. No matter how brilliant you may be, you are almost guaranteed to make bad decisions if your decisions are based on false information. Critical thinkers do not merely value the truth; they also have a passion for accurate, timely information. As consumers, citizens, workers, and parents, they strive to make decisions and this decision should be based on true information. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 134  4) Relevance The question of relevance is a question of connections. When there is a discussion or debate, it should focus on relevant ideas and information. That is, only those points that bear on the issue should be raised. A favorite debaters‘ trick is to try to distract an audience‘s attention by raising an irrelevant issue. Critical thinkers do not collect any information; they focus and carefully choose only the information that has logical relation with the ideas at hands. Issues raised should have logical connection with the question at hand. Two ideas are relevant when they have logical connection. A critical thinker should be relevant in his ideas and thoughts. 5) Consistency Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same opinions or standards. It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic tells us that if a person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false. Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout for inconsistencies, both in their own thinking and in the arguments and assertions of others. There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided. One is logical inconsistency, which involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about a particular matter. The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in short people sometime are hypocrites. From a critical thinking point of view, such personality is not especially interesting. As a rule, they involve failures of character to a greater degree than they do failures of critical reasoning. More interesting from a critical thinking standpoint are cases in which people are not fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds. Such cases highlight an important lesson of critical thinking: human beings often display a remarkable capacity for self-deception. Author Harold Kushner, in this respect, writes as: [a]sk the average person which is more important to him, making money or being devoted to his family, and virtually everyone will answer family without hesitation. But watch how the average person actually lives out his life. See where he really invests his time and energy, and he will By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 135 give away the fact that he really does not live by what he says he believes. He has let himself be persuaded that if he leaves for work earlier in the morning and comes home more tired at night, he is proving how devoted he is to his family by expending himself to provide them with all the things they have seen advertised. Critical thinking helps us become aware of such unconscious practical inconsistencies, allowing us to deal with them on a conscious and rational basis. It is also common, of course, for people to hold unknowingly inconsistent beliefs about a particular subject. In fact, as Socrates pointed out long ago, such unconscious logical inconsistency is far more common than most people suspect. For example, many today claim that morality is relative, while holding a variety of views that imply that it is not relative. Critical thinking helps us to recognize such logical inconsistencies or, still better, avoid them altogether. A critical thinker should be consistent logically and practically. 6) Logical Correctness To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from the beliefs held. To think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs. But, just as important, we need to be able to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow from them. Unfortunately, illogical thinking is all too common in human affairs. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combinations of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is logical. When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not make sense the combination, is not logical. 7) Completeness In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial thinking. Of course, there are times when it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth; no one would expect, for example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the ethics of the right to self- determination in a short newspaper editorial. However, thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather than superficial. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 136  8) Fairness Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of distorting biases and preconceptions. That can be very difficult to achieve. Even the most superficial acquaintance with history and the social sciences tells us that people are often strongly disposed to resist unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge issues, to stereotype outsiders, and to identify truth with their own self-interest or the interests of their nation or group. It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could ever be completely free of biases and preconceptions; to some extent, we all perceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our individual life experiences and cultural backgrounds. But as difficult as it may be to achieve, basic fair-mindedness is clearly an essential attribute of a critical thinker. We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view, which tends to privilege our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one‘s own feelings or interests. Because we tend to be biased in favor of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to see things we do not want to see, or give something up that we want to hold onto. Lesson 3: Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion Lesson Overview We have learned in chapter two that a good argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or implicit claims, one or more of which supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of another claim, the conclusion. We have also seen in the previous lesson that critical thinking‘ is a disciplined thinking that provide a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; and governed by clear intellectual standards that can be used to identify a critical thinking from the uncritical. But the question is that how can we measure the goodness or badness of an argument?, and how is that some thinking are critical, and some are not. In this lesson, we will discuss the basic codes By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 137 of intellectual conduct, especially the common principles of a good argument as well as that of a critical thinking. Lesson Objectives: After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:  Recognize the important principles of good arguments.  Appreciate the basic principles of a critical thinking. 3.1 Principles of Good Argument Activity # 3: Dear learners, how do you distinguish a good argument from a bad one? A discussion may involve two or more participants or it may simply be an internal discussion with oneself. In either case, one who wishes to construct the strongest possible arguments for his or her views, and to do one‘s part in resolving conflicts concerning issues that matter, should make each of the following principles a part of his or her intellectual style: 1) The Structural Principle The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument. Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. Neither does it draw any invalid deductive inferences. The first criterion used in determining whether an argument is a good one is the requirement that it be structurally sound. An argument must look and works like an argument. In other words, it should be formed in such a way that the conclusion either follows necessarily from its premises, in the case of deductive arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the case of inductive arguments. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 138 A good argument should also provide us with reasons to believe that the conclusion deserves our acceptance. Since most discussions about controversial issues are initiated because the argument‘s conclusion has not yet been accepted by all participants, the arguer will use premises that are more likely to be accepted than the conclusion. If those premises are accepted and they lead to the conclusion, it is more likely that the conclusion will also be accepted. Another structural feature of an argument that could render it fatally flawed would be one whose premises are incompatible with one another. An argument that has such premises is one from which any conclusion, no matter how outrageous, can be drawn. The fact that an argument with incompatible premises may yield an absurd result demonstrates that it cannot even function as an argument— let alone a good one. It certainly cannot help us decide what to do or believe. The same is true of an argument with a conclusion that contradicts one of the premises. A conclusion that contradicts another claim in the same argument violates the law of non-contradiction. 2) The Relevance Principle This is the second principle of a good argument that requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. The premises of a good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion. There is no reason to waste time assessing the truth or acceptability of a premise if it is not even relevant to the truth of the conclusion. A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in favor of, or has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion. A premise is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no connection to the truth or merit of the conclusion. One may want to ask two questions in an effort to determine whether a particular premise or reason is relevant. First, would the premise‘s being true in any way make one more likely to believe that the conclusion is true? If the answer is yes, the premise is probably relevant. If the answer is no, the premise is probably not relevant. Second, even if the premise is true, should it be a consideration in the determination of whether or not the conclusion of the argument is true? For example, does the fact that an idea that is widely accepted by most people can be considered By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 139 as a sign that the idea itself is good. ? If the answer is no, then a premise that asserts that claim is irrelevant. If the answer is yes, which is unlikely in this case, then the premise should be regarded as relevant. 3) The Acceptability Principle The third principle of a good argument is the acceptability principle. This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should provide reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability. The reasons set forth in support of a conclusion must be acceptable. A reason is acceptable if it is the kind of claim that a rational person would accept in the face of all the relevant evidence available. Some people believe that the acceptability principle should be replaced by the truth principle to connote the idea that premises should be true to be acceptable. However, the term ―acceptable‖ is preferable to the more traditional term ―true‖ for several reasons. First, the notion of acceptability stems from the very nature of argumentative interchange. In most argumentative situations, the key to achieving agreement on the conclusion is achieving acceptance of the premises. The arguer typically starts with premises that the sceptic is likely to accept or that a rational person ought to accept. Upon acceptance of the premises, assuming that other criteria of a good argument are satisfied, the opponent is logically led to the acceptance of the conclusion. Second, since it is notoriously difficult to establish the absolute truth of any statement, it would be an impractical requirement of a good argument that its premises must be true in any absolute sense. Indeed, if such a condition were enforced, there would be very few good arguments. The most that we can legitimately expect is what a reasonable person would accept as true. Third, an analysis of our language suggests that in many ordinary contexts, what we typically mean by the word ―true‖ would be more appropriately expressed by the phrase ―accepted as true.‖ Consider, for example, the contradictory testimony from courtroom witnesses, each of whom is allegedly telling the truth. A better way to describe what is happening there is that each witness is presumably telling what he or she honestly accepts as true. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 140 Fourth, even if a premise were true in the absolute sense, it may be unacceptable to a particular audience because that audience may not be in a position to determine its truth. For example, the evidence for a premise may be inaccessible to them in that it is too technical for them to understand. The truth of the premise would therefore not add anything to the practical force of the argument. An argument can be a good one only if the premises are accepted or recognized as true. 4) The Sufficiency Principle The four principle of a good argument is the sufficiency principle, which requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion. The feature of the sufficiency principle that is most difficult to apply is the assignment of weight to each piece of supporting evidence. Indeed, disagreement over this issue probably causes most of the problems in informal discussions. What one participant regards as the most important piece of evidence, another may regard as trivial by comparison with other possible evidence. It is not likely that we will come to closure in a dispute until we come to some kind of agreement about the relative weight to give to the kinds of relevant and acceptable evidence used in support of a conclusion. One should ask several questions when applying the sufficiency test to a particular argument. First, are the reasons that are given, even if they are relevant and acceptable, enough to drive one to the arguer‘s proposed conclusion? Second, is the evidence presented flawed by some kind of faulty causal analysis? Finally, is some key or crucial evidence simply missing from the argument that must be included as one of the premises in order for one to accept the argument‘s conclusion? Answer to these questions will tell us if the premises are sufficient. 5) The Rebuttal Principle The last principle of a good argument is the rebuttal principle. This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the argument an effective By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 141 rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against it or against the position it supports. Since an argument is usually presented against the background that there is another side to the issue, a good argument must meet that other side directly. An argument cannot be a good one if it does not anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most serious criticisms against it and the position that it supports. A complete argument might even refute the arguments mustered in behalf of alternate positions on the issue in question. One must ask and answer several questions in applying the rebuttal principle to an argument. First, what are the strongest arguments against the position being defended? Second, does the argument address the counterarguments effectively? Third, what potentially serious weaknesses in the argument for the position might be recognized by an opponent? Fourth, does the argument itself recognize and address those possible weaknesses? Finally, does the argument show why arguments for alternative positions on the issue are flawed or unsuccessful? Arguments can fail to meet the rebuttal principle in several ways and those wishing to avoid the responsibility of rebuttal commonly use several diversionary tactics. For example, arguments that misrepresent the criticism bring up trivial objections or a side issue, or resort to humor or ridicule are using devices that clearly fail to make effective responses. The same can be said of those arguments that ignore or deny the counterevidence against the position defended. Finally, some arguers try to avoid responding to a criticism by attacking the critic instead of the criticism. All of these approaches are clear violations of our obligation to respond honestly to the arguments of our opponents. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 142  3.2 Principles of Critical Thinking Activity # 4: Dear learners, how do you distinguish a critical thinking from the an uncritical one? Having discussed the major principles of a good argument, let us now see the principles of a critical thinking as parts of the codes of intellectual conduct. 1) The Fallibility Principle The first principle of a critical thinking is the fallibility principle. This principle requires that each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one‘s own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question. To employ the fallibility principle in a discussion is consciously to accept the fact that you are fallible, that is, that your present view may be wrong or not the most defensible view on the matter in dispute. If you refuse to accept your own fallibility, you are, in effect, saying that you are not willing to change your mind, even if you hear a better argument. This is pretty strong evidence that you do not intend to play fairly, and there is no real point in continuing the discussion. An admission of fallibility, however, is a positive sign that you are genuinely interested in the kind of honest inquiry that may lead to a fair resolution of the issue. Given the great number of issues that divide us and the large number of different positions on each of those issues, it is more likely that a person would turn out to be wrong on more issues than right. 2) The Truth Seeking Principle The second principle of a critical thinking is the truth seeking principle. This principle requires that each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held on an issue. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 143 The search for truth is lifelong endeavor, which principally takes the form of discussion, wherein we systematically entertain the ideas and arguments of fellow seekers after truth, while at the same time thoughtfully considering criticisms of our own views. If we really are interested in finding the truth, it is imperative not only that we assume that we may not now have the truth, but that we listen to the arguments for alternative positions and encourage criticism of our own arguments. We probably all want to hold only those opinions that really are true, but the satisfaction of that interest comes at a price - a willingness to look at all available options and the arguments in support of them. Otherwise, we might miss the truth completely. The problem, of course, is that most of us want the truth to be what we now hold to be the truth. 3) The Clarity Principle The clarity principle is the third principle of a critical thinking. It requires that the formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues. Any successful discussion of an issue must be carried on in language that all the parties involved can understand. Even if what we have to say is perfectly clear to ourselves, others may not be able to understand us. A position or a criticism of it that is expressed in confusing, vague, ambiguous, or contradictory language will not reach those toward whom it is directed, and it will contribute little to resolving the issue at hand. 4) The Burden of Proof Principle The fourth principle of a critical thinking is the burden of proof principle. This principle requires that the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position. Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always challenged to defend our claims. But if the claimant is asked ―Why?‖ or ―How do you know that is true?‖ he or she is By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 144 logically obligated to produce reasons on behalf of the claim. An exception to this rule is a situation in which the claim in question is well established or uncontroversial. In such a case, the burden of proof might rest on the one who wishes to challenge that claim. One has the responsibility to provide evidence for one‘s conclusion and for any questionable premise, if asked to do so. To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of ―arguing from ignorance,‖ for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all. 5) The Principle of Charity This is the fifth principle of a critical thinking that requires that if a participant‘s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully expressed in its strongest possible version that is consistent with what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about any implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity to amend it. Good discussion in general and argumentation in particular impose an ethical requirement on their participants. But there is also a practical reason for being fair with one another‘s arguments. If we deliberately create and then attack a weak version of the original argument, we will probably fail to achieve the very goals that discussion is designed to serve. If we are really interested in the truth or the best answer to a problem, then we will want to evaluate the best version of any argument set forth in support of one of the options. Hence, if we don‘t deal with the best version now, we will eventually have to do so, once an uncharitable version has been corrected by the arguer or others. We would do well, then, to be fair about it in the first place by letting our opponents amend any portion of our reconstruction of their arguments. 6) The Suspension of Judgment Principle The sixth principle of a critical thinking is the suspension of judgment principle. This principle requires that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 145 be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require a more immediate decision, one should weigh the relative benefits or harm connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decides the issue on those grounds. If suitable evidence is so lacking that one has no good basis for making a decision either way, it may be quite appropriate to suspend judgment on the matter and wait until there is more of a basis for decision. This alternative should not, however, be seen as a clever way to avoid the psychological fright of making a difficult decision or of moving into unfamiliar territory. 7) The Resolution Principle The last principle of a critical thinking is the resolution principle. This principle requires that an issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative positions is a structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that together provide sufficient grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports. Unless one can demonstrate that the argument has not met these conditions more successfully than any argument presented for alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its conclusion and consider the issue to be settled. If the argument is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution. If the purpose of rational discussion is ultimately to decide what to do or believe, then coming to closure should happen more often than it does. There are many good arguments out there, and if good arguments resolve issues, why are not more issues resolved? How much more discussion is needed, just because some refuse to recognize the force of a good argument? Unfortunately, very few controversial issues ever come to rational resolution. If you have doubts about this, then ask yourself when the last time was that you allowed the force of argument to change your mind about an important issue - even though changing one‘s mind in the face of a good argument should not be a difficult thing to do for a genuine truth-seeker. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 146 So why does it not happen? Why are issues not resolved? There are probably a number of reasons. It could be that one of the parties to the dispute has a blind spot; that is, he or she simply cannot be objective about the particular issue at hand. Or maybe he or she has been rationally but not psychologically convinced by the discussion. Another possible explanation is that one or more of the parties in the dispute have been rationally careless or at least guilty of not thinking as clearly as they should. It is even possible that one of the parties has a hidden agenda - an issue to defend other than the stated one. Or maybe the parties involved are simply not being honest with themselves, for they may want to win the argument more than they want to find a solution to the problem. Finally, perhaps the parties are in what might be called deep disagreement. In other words, they are divided on the issue because of fundamental underlying assumptions that have yet to be explored. No argument, however, being regarded as permanently successful. There is always the possibility that new evidence will come to light that will raise new doubts about a position hold on what were thought to be good grounds. Under these conditions, further examination is always appropriate. Pride in holding a position defended by a good argument in the past should not become an obstacle to reopening the issue in the present if conditions warrant it. The new doubts, however, should not be the same old doubts in new clothing. Reopening the issue should come only as a consequence of uncovering new or reinterpreted evidence not considered in the earlier treatment of the issue. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 147 Lesson 4: Characteristics of Critical Thinking Lesson Overview So far, in this chapter, we have discussed the meaning and nature of critical thinking; standards of critical thinking, codes of intellectual conduct: the principles of good arguments and critical thinking. With this as background, we are now in a position to offer general characteristics of critical thinking. Lesson Objectives: After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:  Appreciate the general characteristics of critical thinking.  Understand the characteristics of a critical and uncritical thinker. Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think of the specific characteristics that best distinguishes critical individuals from those uncritical ones? Dear learners, we have defined critical thinking generally as a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims. What then distinguishes a critical thinker from the uncritical one? Let us discuss some characteristics of Critical and Uncritical Thinkers. 4.1 Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical thinking. There are some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values that every critical person should manifest. In this section, we will see some of the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers. Critical thinkers:  Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.  Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 148   Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.  Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error.  Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person.  Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.  Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking before acting. 4.2 Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers We have in the previous section that every critical person manifests some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values. What about the uncritical thinker? In this section, we will see some traits of uncritical thinkers. Uncritical thinkers:  Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free.  Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.  Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to understand.  Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.  Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I refute this?"  Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views.  Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 149 Let us now compare and contrasts the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers with the relevant traits of uncritical thinkers: First, critical thinkers have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other critical thinking standards while uncritical thinkers often think in ways that are unclear, imprecise, and inaccurate. In addition to this, critical thinkers are sensitive to ways in which critical thinking can be skewed by egocentrism, sociocentrism, wishful thinking, and other impediments, while uncritical thinkers often fall prey to egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking, unwarranted assumptions, and wishful thinking. Second, critical thinkers are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and evaluating arguments and viewpoints whereas uncritical thinkers often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly arguments and viewpoints. Moreover, critical thinkers reason logically, draw appropriate conclusions from evidence and data, while uncritical thinkers are illogical, and draw unsupported conclusions from these sources. Third, critical thinkers are intellectually honest with themselves, acknowledging what they do not know and recognizing their limitations while uncritical thinkers pretend they know more than they do and ignore their limitations. Furthermore, critical thinkers listen open-mindedly to opposing points of view, welcome criticisms of beliefs and assumptions, whereas uncritical thinkers are closed-minded, and resist criticisms of beliefs and assumptions. Fourth, critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and evidence rather than on personal preferences or self-interests, while uncritical thinkers often base beliefs on mere personal preferences or self-interests. Again, critical thinkers are aware of the biases and preconceptions that shape the way they perceive the world, whereas uncritical thinkers lack awareness of their own biases and preconceptions. Fifth, critical thinkers think independently and are not afraid to disagree with group opinion whereas uncritical thinkers tend to engage in ―groupthink‖ uncritically following the beliefs and values of the crowd. Moreover, critical thinkers have the intellectual courage to face and assess By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 150 fairly ideas that challenge even their most basic beliefs whereas uncritical thinkers fear and resist ideas that challenge their basic beliefs. Finally yet importantly, critical thinkers pursue truth, are curious about a wide range of issues and have the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or difficulties whereas uncritical thinkers are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity, tend not to persevere when they encounter intellectual obstacles or difficulties. Lesson 5: Barriers to Critical Thinking Lesson Overview It is said that critical thinking‘ is a disciplined thinking that provide a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; and governed by clear intellectual standards that can be used to identify a critical thinking from the uncritical. But if critical thinking is so important, why is it that uncritical thinking is so common? Why is it that so many people, including many highly educated and intelligent people, find critical thinking so difficult? The reasons are quite complex. In this lesson, we will discuss some of the problems that impede critical thinking. But we will limit our discussion to four of them: egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted assumptions and stereotype and relativistic thinking. These are not exhaustive lists. There are many factors that impede critical thinking. Lesson Objectives: After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:  Identify and define the major barriers to critical thinking. Activity # 1: Dear learners, what do you think impede critical thinking? Dear learners, there are a number of factors that impede a critical thinking. Some of the most common barriers to critical thinking are: Lack of relevant background information, poor reading skills, bias, prejudice, superstition, egocentrism (self-centered thinking), sociocentrism (group- By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 151 centered thinking), peer pressure, conformism, provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking), narrow-mindedness, closed-mindedness, distrust in reason, relativistic thinking, stereotyping, unwarranted assumptions, scapegoating (blaming the innocent), rationalization (inventing excuses to avoid facing our real motives). Let us examine in detail five of these impediments that play an especially powerful role in hindering critical thinking: egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted assumptions, relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking. 1) Egocentrism One of the most powerful barriers to critical thinking is egocentrism. Even highly educated and intelligent people are prey to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone else‘s. All of us are affected to some degree by egocentric biases. Egocentrism can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-interested thinking and the superiority bias. Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one‘s self-interest. Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking. There are a number of facts, which supported this idea. For example, most doctors support legislation making it more difficult for them to be sued for malpractice because they do not want to punish for mistakes committed in the workplace. Most university professors strongly support tenure, paid sabbaticals, low teaching loads, and a strong faculty voice in university governance because these will promote their interest. Most factory workers support laws requiring advance notice of plant closings; most factory owners do not. Of course, some of these beliefs may be supported by good reasons. From a psychological standpoint, however, it is likely that self-interest plays at least some role in shaping the respective attitudes and beliefs. Self-interested thinking, however understandable it may seem, is a major obstacle to critical thinking. Everyone finds it tempting at times to reason that ―this benefits me, therefore it must be good‖; but from a critical thinking standpoint, such ―reasoning‖ is a sham. Implicit in such thinking is the assumption that ―What is most important is what I want and need.‖ But why By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 152 should I, or anyone else, accept such an arbitrary and obviously self-serving assumption? What makes your wants and needs more important than everyone else‘s? Critical thinking condemns such special pleading. It demands that we weigh evidence and arguments objectively and impartially. Ultimately, it demands that we revere truth - even superiority bias (also known as illusory superiority or the better-than average effect) is the tendency to overrate oneself - to see oneself as better in some respect than one actually is. If you are like most people, you probably think of yourself as being an unusually self-aware person who is largely immune from any such self-deception. If so, then you too are probably suffering from superiority bias - when it hurts. 2) Sociocentrism The second powerful barrier that paralyze the critical thinking ability of most people including intellectuals is sociocentrism. It is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the group. Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most important are group bias and conformism. Group bias is the tendency to see one‘s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like) as being inherently better than others. Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely common throughout human history and across cultures. Just as we seem naturally inclined to hold inflated views of ourselves, so we find it easy to hold inflated views of our family, our community, or our nation. Conversely, we find it easy to look with suspicion or disfavor on those we regard as ―outsiders‖ Most people absorb group bias unconsciously, usually from early childhood. It is common, for example, for people to grow up thinking that their society‘s beliefs, institutions, and values are better than those of other societies. Although most people outgrow nationalistic biases to some extent, few of us manage to outgrow them completely. Clearly, this kind of ―mine-is-better‖ thinking lies at the root of a great deal of human conflict, intolerance, and oppression. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 153 Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to be part of the in- group, can be among the most powerful of human motivations. This desire can seriously cripple our powers of critical reasoning and decision-making. Authority moves us. We are impressed, influenced, and intimidated by authority, so much so that, under the right conditions, we abandon our own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own immediate experience. As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of the seductive power of peer pressure and reliance on authority and develop habits of independent thinking to combat them. 3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes The third factor that impedes critical thinking is unwarranted assumptions and stereotype. An assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any proof or conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. If the weather report calls for rain, we take an umbrella because we assume that the meteorologist is not lying, that the report is based on a scientific analysis of weather patterns, that the instruments are accurate, and so forth. There may be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser to take the umbrella than to insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evidence to justify its prediction. Although we often hear the injunction ―Don‘t assume,‖ it would be impossible to get through a day without making assumptions; in fact, many of our daily actions are based on assumptions we have drawn from the patterns in our experience. You go to class at the scheduled time because you assume that class is being held at its normal hour and in its same place. You don‘t call the professor each day to ask if class is being held; you just assume that it is. Such assumptions are warranted, which means that we have good reason to hold them. When you see a driver coming toward you with the turn signal on, you have good reason to believe that the driver intends to turn. You may be incorrect, and it might be safer to withhold action until you are certain, but your assumption is not unreasonable. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 154 Unwarranted assumptions, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is something taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things clearly. One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype. The word stereotype comes from the printing press era, when plates, or stereotypes, were used to produce identical copies of one page. Similarly, when we stereotype, as the word is now used, we assume that individual people have all been stamped from one plate, so all politicians are alike, members of ethnic groups, professors, women, teachers, and so forth. When we form an opinion of someone that is based not on his or her individual qualities but, rather, on his or her membership in a particular group, we are assuming that all or virtually all members of that group are alike. Because people are not identical, no matter what race or other similarities they share, stereotypical conceptions will often be false or misleading. Typically, stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as hasty generalization, in which one draws a conclusion about a large class of things(in this case, people) from a small sample. If we meet one South African who talk a lot, we might jump to the conclusion that all South Africans talk a lot. Or we might generalize from what we have heard from a few friends or reading a single news story. Often the media advertisements, the news, movies, and so forth encourage stereotyping by the way they portray groups of people. The assumptions we need to become most conscious of are not the ones that lead to our routine behaviors, such as carrying an umbrella or going to class, but the ones on which we base our more important attitudes, actions, and decisions. If we are conscious of our tendency to stereotype, we can take measures to end it. 4) Relativistic Thinking One of the strongest challenges to critical thinking is relativistic thinking. Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and cultural relativism. Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion. According to subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and there is no such thing as ―objective‖ or ―absolute‖ truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what anyone believes. For example, suppose Abdella believes that abortion is wrong and Obang By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 155 believes that abortion is not always wrong. According to subjectivism, abortion is always wrong for Abdella and not always wrong for Obang. Both beliefs are true – for them. And truth for one individual or another is the only kind of truth there is. The other common form of relativism is cultural relativism. This is the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion. In other words, cultural relativism is the view that what is true for person A is what person A‘s culture or society believes is true. Drinking wine, for example, is widely considered to be wrong in Iran but is not generally considered to be wrong in France. According to cultural relativism, therefore, drinking wine is immoral in Iran but is morally permissible in France. Thus, for the cultural relativist, just as for the subjectivist, there is no objective or absolute standard of truth. What is true is whatever most people in a society or culture believe to be true. Relatively few people endorse subjectivism or cultural relativism in the pure, unqualified forms in which we have stated them. Almost everybody would admit, for example, that 1 + 1 = 2 is true, no matter who might be ignorant or deluded enough to deny it. What relativists usually claim, therefore, is not that all truth is relative, but that truth is relative in some important domain(s). By far the most common form of relativism is moral relativism. Like relativism generally, moral relativism comes in two major forms: moral subjectivism and cultural moral relativism. Moral subjectivism is the view that what is morally right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A believes is morally right and good. Thus, if G/Meskel believes that premarital sex is always wrong, and Eden believes that it is not always wrong; according to moral subjectivism, premarital sex is always wrong for G/Meskel and is not always wrong for Eden. The other major form of moral relativism is cultural moral relativism, the view that what is morally right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A‘s society or culture believes is morally right and good. Thus, according to cultural moral relativism, if culture A believes that polygamy is wrong, and culture B believes that polygamy is right, then polygamy is wrong for culture A and right for culture B. Cultural moral relativism is a very popular view. There are two By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 156 major reasons people seem to find it so attractive. One has to do with the nature of moral disagreement and the other concerns the value of tolerance. Ethics, obviously, is very different from mathematics or science. In mathematics and science, there are arguments and disagreements, but not nearly to the extent there are in ethics. In ethics there is widespread disagreement, the disagreements often go very deep, and there seems to be no rational way to resolve many of them. What this shows, some people conclude, is that there is no objective truth in ethics; morality is just a matter of individual or societal opinion. Another reason people find cultural moral relativism attractive is that it seems to support the value of tolerance. Throughout history, terrible wars, persecutions, and acts of religious and cultural imperialism have been perpetrated by people who firmly believed in the absolute righteousness of their moral beliefs and practices. Cultural moral relativism seems to imply that we must be tolerant of other cultures‘ moral beliefs and values. If culture A believes that polygamy is wrong, and culture B believes that it is right, then culture A must agree that polygamy is right for culture B, no matter how offensive the practice may be to culture A. Despite these apparent attractions, however, there are deep problems with cultural moral relativism. First, does the fact that there is deep disagreement in ethics show that there is no objective moral truth - that ethics is just a matter of opinion? Think about another area in which there is deep, pervasive, and seemingly irresolvable disagreement: religion. People disagree vehemently over whether God exists, whether there is an afterlife, and so forth; yet we do not conclude from this that there is no objective truth about these matters. It may be difficult to know whether God exists. But whether he exists is not simply a matter of opinion. Thus, deep disagreement about an issue does not show that there is no objective truth about that issue. Second, cultural moral relativism does not necessarily support the value of tolerance. Relativism tells us that we should accept the customs and values of our society. Thus, if you live in an intolerant society, relativism implies that you too should be intolerant. Does this mean that cultural moral relativism has nothing at all to teach us? No. The fact that people disagree so much about ethics does not show that moral truth is simply a matter of opinion, but it should make us cautious and open-minded regarding our own ethical beliefs. If millions of obviously By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 157 decent, intelligent people disagree with you, how can you be sure that your values are the correct ones? In this way, relativism can teach us an important lesson about the value of intellectual humility. But we do not need relativism - which is a false and confused theory - to teach us this lesson. We can learn it just by opening our hearts and minds and thinking critically about the challenges of living an ethical life. 5) Wishful Thinking Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for it but simply because you wished it were true. Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking? If so, you are not alone. Throughout human history, reason has done battle with wishful thinking and has usually come out the loser. People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to render the universe less hostile and more predictable. They fear death and listen credulously to stories of healing crystals, quack cures, and communication with the dead. They fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal powers and accept uncritically accounts of psychic prediction and levitation, Lesson 6: Benefits of Critical Thinking Lesson Overview Being a critical person in general and critical thinking in particular has many benefits. In this lesson, we will discuss some benefits of critical thinking. Lesson Objectives: After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:  Identify the major benefits of critical thinking. Activity # 1: Dear learners, what benefits of critical thinking do you think of? By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 158 Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and problems in the community. It will teach you to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely. It will teach you how to gather and assess relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criterion and standards. It teaches you how to be open minded to alternative system of thought, recognize and assess your own assumptions, implications and practical consequences, how to communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is what university is all about. University is not only about teaching students with facts. It‘s about teaching students to think- think critically. This chapter will introduce you the skills and dispositions you need to become an independent, self-directed thinker and learner. But you‘ll only get out of this course what you put into it. Becoming a critical thinker is hard work. Becoming a master thinker means toning up your mental muscles and acquiring habits of careful, disciplined thinking. This requires effort, and practice. Critical thinking is an adventure. Becoming mentally fit is hard work. But in the end you‘ll be a smarter, stronger, more confident thinker. Let us consider, more specifically, what you can expect to gain from a course in critical thinking. Critical Thinking in the Classroom When they first enter university, students are sometimes surprised to discover that university education seem less interested in how beliefs are acquired than they are in whether those beliefs can withstand critical scrutiny. The question is not much about what you know, but how you acquire what you know and whether your ideas stands critical examination. In university, the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information. For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role in universities. In a critical thinking chapter, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom performance. These skills include:  Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 159   Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs  Developing and defending one‘s own well-supported arguments and beliefs Let us look briefly at each of these three skills: To succeed in university, you must, of course, be able to understand the material you are studying. A course in critical thinking cannot make inherently difficult material easy to grasp, but critical thinking does teach a variety of skills that, with practice, can significantly improve your ability to understand the arguments and issues discussed in your college textbooks and classes. In addition, critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in class. During your university career, your instructors will often ask you to discuss ―critically‖ some argument or idea introduced in class. Critical thinking teaches a wide range of strategies and skills that can greatly improve your ability to engage in such critical evaluation. You will also be asked to develop your own arguments on particular topics or issues. In moral and civic education class, for example, you might be asked to write a paper addressing the issue of whether ethnic federalism is good or bad. To write such a paper successfully, you must do more than simply find and assess relevant arguments and information. You must also be able to marshal arguments and evidence in a way that convincingly supports your view. The systematic training provided in a course in critical thinking can greatly improve that skill as well. Critical thinking is a transferable thinking skill. These skills will be taught in ways that expressly aim to facilitate their transfer to other subjects and contexts. If you learn how to structure argument, judge the credibility of sources or make a reasonable decision by the methods of critical thinking for instance, it will not be difficult to see how to do these things in many other contexts such as in class rooms and personal life; this is the sense in which the skills we teach in this text are transferable. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 160 Critical Thinking in Life Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom. Let us look briefly at three ways in which this is the case. First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. All of us have at one time or another made decisions about what profession to choose, what relationships to enter into, what personal behavior to develop, and the like that we later realized were seriously misguided or irrational. Critical thinking can help us avoid such mistakes by teaching us to think about important life decisions more carefully, clearly, and logically. Second, critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. In democracy, it is the people who have the ultimate say over who governs and for what purposes. Citizens should vote, should evaluate different public policies, and collectively determine their fate and et cetera. It is vital, therefore, that citizens‘ decisions be as informed and as rational as possible. Many of today‘s most serious societal problems - environmental destruction, poverty, ethnic conflicts, decaying the morality of societies, high level of corruption , violating basic human rights, displacement, to mention just a few - have largely been caused by poor critical thinking. Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal enrichment it can bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of the human condition is that most people, most of the time, believe what they are told. Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without question that the earth was the centre of the universe, that demons cause disease that slavery was just, and that women are inferior to men. Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society. It lets us step back from the prevailing customs and ideologies of our culture and ask, ―This is what I‘ve been taught, but is it true? In short, critical thinking allows us to lead self-directed, ―examined‖ lives. Such personal liberation is, as the word itself implies, the ultimate goal of education. Whatever other benefits it brings, education can have no greater reward. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 161 Chapter Summary Critical also means, ―involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation.‖ In this sense, critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do. It does not automatically follow that being intelligent means the student can think critically or reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Critical thinking is a process. It is, also, a journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. As part and parcel of logic, critical thinking ,also, teaches us what logical principles we, as rational beings, should following in right reasoning. It is also important to recall that, in this chapter, characteristics of critical and uncritical persons, criteria for critical thinking, what it meant for a good argument and other related issues were addressed. By: Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) 162