IB 2024-25 Thinking in Action 1 Syllabus PDF

A picture containing text, light Description automatically generated IB 2024-25 Syllabus Thinking in Action 1 The creators of this module, Wypkje van der Heide and Nanna Freeman, give special thanks to colleagues at Lectoraat Brein en Leren (Avans Hogeschool) for sharing many materials and ideas...

A picture containing text, light Description automatically generated IB 2024-25 Syllabus Thinking in Action 1 The creators of this module, Wypkje van der Heide and Nanna Freeman, give special thanks to colleagues at Lectoraat Brein en Leren (Avans Hogeschool) for sharing many materials and ideas with us, some of which made it into this syllabus. **\ **  Module Description: ==================== +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Module Description: Thinking in | | | Action I ** | | +===================================+===================================+ | **Credits**  | 3 ECTS  | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Course Code**  | IB-P101-18  | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Entry requirements**  |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Programme Year**  | Year 1 FYP   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Semester / Block**  | Semester 1 / Block 2  | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Weeks**  | 7   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Teaching Method**  | Workshops   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Coordinator**  | Ms Wypkje van der Heide / Ms | | | Nanna Freeman | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Lecturer(s)**  |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Course content/outline**  | Critical thinking, when taught, | | | is an interactive process between | | | participants: lecturers and | | | students alike. It involves, at | | | its core, seeing both/all sides | | | of an issue, being open to new | | | evidence that disconfirms your | | | ideas, reasoning with a strong | | | foundation, demanding that claims | | | be backed up with evidence, and | | | deducing and inferring | | | conclusions from available | | | facts.   | | | | | |   | | | | | | To kickstart and facilitate this | | | process, all participants must be | | | able to identify what makes a | | | strong or weak argument, | | | (de)construct an argument, and | | | develop a shared vocabulary. | | | Furthermore, we explore how | | | System 1 (fast thinking) and | | | System 2 thinking (slow | | | thinking), as defined by | | | Kahneman, affect our day to day | | | lives, thoughts, and decision | | | making.   | | | | | |   | | | | | | These skills will then be put to | | | use in modules throughout the IB | | | programme, for instance to help | | | develop world citizenship and | | | ethical decision making, to | | | contribute to innovation and to | | | solve problems using primary and | | | secondary research. It will be | | | followed up in year 2 with | | | Thinking in Action 2.   | | | | | |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Learning outcomes**  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLO  | | | NEW  | | | PLO  | | | CUR.  | | | Module Learning Outco | | | me  | | | Level   | | | (1-3)  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLO1  | | | WT1  | | | MLO1: Name/list the different | | | parts of an argument, using Toul | | | min method  | | | 1  | | | | | | | | | PLO1, PLO4  | | | WT1  | | | MLO2: Recognize components of | | | an argument, according to Toulmi | | | n, in different given examples of | | | arguments.    | | | 1  | | | | | | | | | PLO1,  | | | PLO4  | | | WT1  | | | MLO3: Classify errors in thin | | | king and/or reasoning according t | | | o fallacies, biases, heuristics < | | | /td> | | | 2  | | | | | | | | | PLO1,  | | | PLO4  | | | WT1  | | | MLO4: Differentiate a strong | | | from a weak argument or source in | | | a given example   | | | 2  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Course Material | **REQUIRED**  | | (literature/tools)**  | | | | An online syllabus will be | | | provided via Brightspace no later | | | than the week before the module | | | starts.   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Teaching Form**  | **Teaching Form**  **Class ho | | | urs/Week**  **Extra information | | | **  | | | -------------------- ---------- | | | ------------- ------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------- | | | ----------------- | | | Workshop  2  | | | This course is taug | | | ht blended and makes use of onlin | | | e tools and materials. Instead of | | | homework, there is pre-work whic | | | h students must complete before c | | | oming to the workshop. The pre-wo | | | rk is posted on Brightspace and t | | | akes between 4-6 hours to complet | | | e each week.    | | | | | |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Assessment Form**  | | | | | |   | | | | | | **Individual/Group \***  | | | | | | **(Last column)**  | | | | | | | | | | | | | Assessment Form  | | | Weight or P/F  | | | Mininum < | | | /p> | | | Required Grade  | | | Extra information  | | | *  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Written Exam   | | | 100%  | | | 5.5  | | | Administered in Remindo on | | | campus.   | | |   | | | The exam consists of multiple | | | choice questions.    | | |   | | | I  | | | | | | | | | Assignment   | | | P/F  | | | P  | | | Sneak peek video &amp; feedba | | | ck via FeedbackFruits on Brightsp | | | ace   | | | I  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **ECTS Breakdown**  | 3 ECTS = 84 hours  | | | | | |   | | | | | | Workshops = 2 hours/week for 7 | | | weeks     = 14 hours  | | | | | | Prep work = 6 hours/week for 7 | | | weeks       = 42 hours    | | | | | | Assignment                        | | |                             | | | = 10 hours  | | | | | | Exam | | | practice                          | | |                       | | | = 4 hours  | | | | | | Exam | | | revision                          | | |                       | | | = 12 hours  | | | | | | Exam                              | | |                                  | | | = 2 hours  | | | | | |     | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Conversion Information in case | Predecessor Module Name  | | of Changes to the Module**  | Osiris Code | | |   Last Chance Exams to be offer | | | ed in 2024-2025  | | | ------------------------------- | | | --------------------- ----------- | | | --- ----------------------------- | | | ------------------ | | |   | | |   | | |   | | | For more information consult th | | | e conversion table  | | | | | | | | |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ |   |   | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+        How to use this syllabus ======================== This syllabus is supplementary to the course materials found on Brightspace. In that digital environment, you'll be able to find all workshop Powerpoints, video lectures, additional and recommended reading, as well as quizzes and other homework assignments you'll be required to complete in order to comply with the course requirements. You should bring your syllabus to every workshop.  means there is a written activity to complete. means you'll be asked to watch a video at home, either before attending a workshop or after.  means required reading that is longer than a single paragraph. means an explanation of one of the concepts is given.   There are two main parts of the syllabus: Argumentation and Reasoning. ======================================================================= TiA1 Weekly planning 24-25 ==========================   +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | **Week**  | | **CT | | | | | Theme/topic** | | +=================+=================+=================+=================+ | 1  | November | Why critical | | | | | thinking; | | | | 11-15 | introducing the | | | | | course; | | | | | | | | | | Kahneman & | | | | | Tversky system | | | | | 1 and 2 | | | | | thinking | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 2  | November | Argumentation: | | | | | Toulmin's | | | | 18-22 | claim, grounds, | | | | | warrant | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 3  | November | Argumentation: | | | | | Toulmin's | | | | 25-29 | qualifier & | | | | | rebuttal | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 4  | December 2-6 | Argumentation | | | | | and judging | | | | | sources | | | | | | | | | | Start on Sneak | | | | | Peek | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 5  | December | Reasoning: | **Hand in Sneak | | | | Heuristics & | Peek December | | | 9-13 | cognitive | 13** | | | | biases | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 6  | December | Reasoning: | **Give feedback | | | | Fallacies | to Sneak | | | 16-20 | | Peeks** | | | | | | | | | | This class is | | | | | in person! | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | | | Winter Break | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 7  | January | Practice MC | | | | | Mock test: | | | | 13-17 | Argumentation & | | | | | Reasoning | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | 8 | TP2 | **MC TIA1 | | | | | test** | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ Homework planner ================ You can use the table below to write down what homework assignments you have due and what the respective deadlines are. If you have your own system and it works, please use that instead. A sneaky tip: syllabus tasks are usually due by the start of next class. Brightspace tasks will often need to be completed earlier (for instance, 24 hours before class, depending on the task). Custom deadlines will always be mentioned in class or on Brightspace. It is up to you to keep track of them. **To help you out, we've completed the first week's homework for you.** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | **Week* | **Tasks | **Deadl | **Done? | **Brigh | **Deadl | **Done? | | * | from | ines** | ** | tspace | ines** | ** | | | syllabu | | | tasks** | | | | | s** | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | **2** | **Watch | Worksho | Y/N | **Watch | N/A | N/A | | | ** | p | | ** | | | | | the | 2 | | weblect | | | | | documen | | | ures | | | | | tary | | | on: Key | | | | | 'How | | | terms, | | | | | you | | | Toulmin | | | | | really | | | 1 and 2 | | | | | make | | | | | | | | decisio | | | **Famil | | | | | ns" | | | iarize* | | | | | | | | * | | | | | **Answe | | | yoursel | | | | | r** | | | f | | | | | the | | | with | | | | | questio | | | Brights | | | | | ns | | | pace | | | | | exercis | | | environ | | | | | e | | | ment; | | | | | 2 | | | make | | | | | | | | sure | | | | | | | | you | | | | | | | | have | | | | | | | | access | | | | | | | | to the | | | | | | | | correct | | | | | | | | course. | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | **3** | Pages | | | | | | | | \...\.. | | | | | | | |.\...\. | | | | | | | |..\...\ | | | | | | | |...\... | | | | | | | | \...\.. | | | | | | | |.\.... | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | **4** | Pages | | | | | | | | \...\.. | | | | | | | |.\...\. | | | | | | | |..\...\ | | | | | | | |...\... | | | | | | | | \...\.. | | | | | | | |.\.... | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | **5** | Pages | | | Feedbac | Upload | | | | \...\.. | | | kfruits | Sneak | | | |.\...\. | | | : | Peek | | | |..\...\ | | | Sneak | video | | | |...\... | | | peek | | | | | \...\.. | | | video | | | | |.\.... | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | **6** | Pages | | | Feedbac | Give | | | | \...\.. | | | kFruits | comment | | | |.\...\. | | | : | s | | | |..\...\ | | | feedbac | on 2 | | | |...\... | | | k | Sneak | | | | \...\.. | | | | Peek | | | |.\.... | | | | videos | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | **7** | Pages | | | | Final | | | | \...\.. | | | | exam | | | |.\...\. | | | | coming | | | |..\...\ | | | | up! | | | |...\... | | | | | | | | \...\.. | | | | | | | |.\.... | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Introduction to Thinking in Action 1 ==================================== [Exercise 1:] Please fill out the form. Read the instructions carefully. What's your score?Afbeeldingsresultaat voor critical thinking disposition self-rating form Figure [^1^](#fn1){#fnref1.footnote-ref} **Disposition** is another word for attitude. It relates to the way you engage with the world around you, your curiosity, your engagement with self-reflection and more. In order to be a strong critical thinker, you need the right knowledge, skills and dispositions. We can help you develop your skills and knowledge, but can only bring awareness to the importance of these attitudes -- only you can decide to influence or change them. Note that your score here says nothing about how good of a critical thinker you are and can be heavily influenced by how self-critical you are, how seriously you consider each questions, and also demographic factors such as gender. We recommend that you write your initial score down somewhere and then do this same test again at the end of the course. Has there been a change?\ [Exercise 2:] Watch the BBC Horizon documentary "How You Really Make Decisions" (linked on Brightspace) and answer the following questions [In Class:] 1. What is the difference between system 1 and system 2 thinking? (after first clip) 2. Why is decision making difficult when money comes into play? (after second clip) [At home: ] 3. In your own words, based on the documentary, define "cognitive bias." 4. Which cognitive biases are discussed in the documentary? What does each bias mean? 5. Which cognitive bias do you find most interesting? Why? 6. Give an example from your own life where the cognitive bias discussed in your answer to question 3 may have influenced one of your decisions. A picture containing graphical user interface Description automatically generated Toulmin Method ============== The Toulmin method is a way of (de)constructing an argument. For full definitions of key concepts such as "argument", which means something quite specific in the context of this course, please see [Overview of Terms and Definitions](#a-picture-containing-graphical-user-interface-description-automatically-generated-overview-of-terms-and-definitions) of this syllabus. **Warrant** The word "warrant" should not be new to you. Here you see the two most common definitions/usages, with Toulmin's definition in the bottom circle Figure 2 [Two relatively simple examples:] [\ ] [Exercise 3]: Make your own example Come up with a simple claim, grounds (evidence) for that claim, and in the warrant explain (justify) how/why you think these grounds support your claim. In-class discussion drill 1 --------------------------- INSTRUCTIONS ------------ 1. With your group, pick ONE of the discussion topics (A, B or C) below to focus your discussion on. 2. Assign one note-taker. This note-taker needs to keep track of the reasons the other participants give for supporting or disagreeing with the claim. They can do so in short key words. 3. Discuss your claim. You are welcome to do some research as you discuss. a. The aim of this discussion is to come to a better understanding of why people might agree/disagree with these claims. It is NOT the aim to have one person or viewpoint win. b. Try to focus as much as possible on giving ***different reasons*** for agreeing or disagreeing. DISCUSSION TOPICS\* ------------------- A: Governments should invest in businesses which contribute to the expansion of solar, wind and thermal power. (SDG 7) B: Encouraging entrepreneurship is a key way to decrease income inequality. (SDG 8) C: Sustainable business should be central to any business curriculum. (many SDGs) \*All topics are connected to one of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, a UN charter which THUAS has co-signed. Table for note-taker to keep track of reasons: ---------------------------------------------- In favor of the statement Against the statement --------------------------- ----------------------- [*Exercise 4:* Spot the argument] An argument is a claim with grounds (and more!). Which of the following sentences are arguments? Circle or highlight the claim and [underline] the grounds for each argument you identify.   1.   2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. [Exercise 5:] Below, you find two arguments that contain a claim, grounds and a warrant. For each sentence in the paragraphs below, decide which is which. *Argument 1: (a) Driving a car is a normal private citizen's most polluting activity. (b) Due to this fact, switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on overall air pollution. (c) Therefore, all private citizens should trade in their cars for hybrids if we wish to decrease pollution.* a. is b. is c. is *Argument 2: (a) The national government should ban animal research (b) because animals are tortured in experiments that have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of cosmetics.(c) The wellbeing of animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics industry. (d) Only the national government has the authority to make such a law.* a. is b. is c. is d. is [Exercise 6:] Read the excerpt below and answer the questions. *"\[S\]ociology research shows time after time, women in science are believed to be inferior to men and are evaluated as less capable when performing similar or even identical work. This devaluation of women's capabilities results in real consequences: shorter, less praise-worthy letters of recommendation; fewer research grants, awards, and invitations to speak at conferences; and lower citation rates for their research. Such wide-ranging devaluation of women\'s work makes it harder for them to progress in the field."* Adjusted from "Why Men Don't Believe the Data on Gender Bias in Science" (*Wired*, 2017) by Alison Coil.  1. A: "Sociology research \[...\] even identical work."  B: "This devaluation of \[...\] in real consequences"  C: "Such wide-ranging \[...\] progress in the field."     2. A: "Sociology research \[...\] even identical work" and "Such wide-ranging \[...\] progress in the field."   B: "This devaluation of \[...\] in real consequences" and "A vast literature \[...\] even identical work"  C: "Sociology research \[...\] even identical work"  D: "Such wide-ranging \[...\] progress in the field."     3. A: Explicit and found in the sentence "Such wide-ranging \[...\] progress in the field."   B: Implicit and found in the sentence "shorter, less praise-worthy letters \[...\] "for their research."  C: Explicit and found nowhere in this segment.  D: Implicit and found nowhere in this segment.  **Further warrant practice** The warrant is often especially difficult to grasp, because it relates to the logical connection between the grounds and the claim. It explains why the grounds can be used as grounds for this particular claim. Because it relates to the logic that connects these two, the warrant is often unstated (implicit). Compare the following two arguments (A&B) on whether serving pizza served at school can be considered a healthy practice. A: It's fine to count tomato sauce on pizza as part of students' daily vegetable intake, because the US Supreme Court has ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable. B: Tomato sauce on a pizza should not be considered a vegetable, as dieticians have argued the added sugars and fats are detrimental to students' health. You've probably naturally gravitated towards one argument more than to the other. That natural gravitation has to do with the (in these cases implicit) warrants in the arguments. Let's break them down. **Argument A:** **\ ** **Argument B:** By making the implicit warrant explicit, we can see more clearly why we might disagree with a certain argument. Some reasons for disagreement, due to warrants which contain errors in reasoning, will be discussed later. For now, we will just focus on *how* they function, rather than how *well*. [\ ] [Exercise 7:] Below, you find a short list of arguments. For each argument, write down what you think the warrant could be. Feel free to discuss with a partner. Note that the warrant does not necessarily have to be something you agree with. 1. At least one parent of a newborn should be given paid parental leave, as newborns take up a lot of time, energy and care, which is incompatible with two parents working. 2. In majority-Christian countries, Sunday shopping should be banned, because the Bible says Sundays should be a day of rest. 3. Phones should be banned in school during scheduled lessons, as they serve as a distraction. 4. Those imprisoned for possession of a now-legalized amount of marijuana in American states where it has been legalized should be released immediately because it is unethical to imprison people for decriminalized acts. 5. It's not dangerous to use your phone while cycling because I've never got into an accident while doing so. 6. Biographies are better than novels because they sell in higher numbers. [Exercise 8:] In exercise 7, you came up with possible warrants for the arguments listed below. This week, please [underline the qualifier] & give possible rebuttals. 1. At least one parent of a newborn should be given paid parental leave, as newborns take up a lot of time, energy and care, which is incompatible with two parents working. 2. In majority-Christian countries, Sunday shopping should be banned, because the Bible says Sundays should be a day of rest. 3. Phones should be banned in school during scheduled lessons, as they serve as a distraction. 4. Those imprisoned for possession of a now-legalized amount of marijuana in American states where it has been legalized should be released immediately because it is unethical to imprison people for decriminalized acts. 5. It's not dangerous to use your phone while cycling because I've never got into an accident while doing so. 6. Biographies are better than novels because they sell in higher numbers. [Exercise 9:] Use this table in class when instructed to. In the clip of Friends, both Phoebe and Ross make various arguments -- try to note down as many as you can. Focus on the claim and grounds. Warrants can be added later. You can also flow-chart the arguments. An empty template has been included below as a reminder. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Ross | Phoebe | +===================================+===================================+ | Claim: | Claim: | | | | | Grounds: | Grounds: | | | | | Warrant: | Warrant: | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Claim: | Claim: | | | | | Grounds: | Grounds: | | | | | Warrant: | Warrant: | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+   Toulmin method: Qualifier & Rebuttal ==================================== The Toulmin method, as we've been referring to it, deals with strong and complete arguments. Put differently (and very simply), a successful and strong argument, according to Toulmin, *must contain all five elements* as we discussed them in Introduction to Critical Thinking[^2^](#fn2){#fnref2.footnote-ref}. The qualifier outlines the limits to your argument. It shows that you are aware that the point you are making probably has a few exceptions. Before we continue, please have a look at the following Toulmin scheme: 1. Make your claim. **Claim** 2. Restate or qualify your claim. **Qualifier** 3. Present good reasons to support your claim. **Grounds** 4. Explain the underlying assumptions that connect your claim and your reasons. **Warrant** 5. Provide additional grounds to support your claim. **Grounds** 6. Acknowledge and respond to possible counterarguments. **Rebuttal** 7. Draw a conclusion, stated as strongly as possible. **Claim** (Adapted from Lex Runciman, Carolyn Lengel, and Kate Silverstein, *Exercises to Accompany The Everyday Writer*, 4th ed. Macmillan, 2009) We generally only see 5 and 7 in an ***interaction*** -- for instance in a debate, where you are discussing a statement with someone who presents a different point of view -- or in an oral argument of the type found in the American criminal legal system. **\ ** **In the Mind of Sherlock** [Exercise 10:] In class, you're going to be watching a short clip from the TV series *Sherlock*. In this clip, three arguments are presented that we will be looking at (one outside the flat; two inside). While you watch the clip, write down as many of the grounds and warrants as you can. On occasion, we've helped you out a little. **Tip**: write down the grounds while watching. You can add the warrant after. **We'll be dealing with the rebuttal and qualifier *after* watching the clip. You do not have to fill these in while watching!** **[Outside the flat:]** **[Inside the flat:]** A picture containing graphical user interface Description automatically generated Heuristics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thinking, let alone reasoning, consists of too many complex processes to explore in detail here. There are, however, two main modes of thinking involved in decision-making that are crucial to begin understanding. This is generally referred to as the dual process theory of cognition (Kahneman, 2011). You were already introduced to these two processes in the "How you really make decisions" documentary, but there is more about them that needs to be dug into.  If rational thinking/decision making (which we call system 2 in this module) is what we might call the "math lady meme" of reasoning (figure 3) in that it's slow, deliberate, complex, then heuristics (when we take shortcuts, called system 1 in this module) is the "skipping steps meme" (figure 4). Figure 3 **Heuristics** are simple models that allow people to quickly find a good-enough solution to a problem, while disregarding some of the information (Bilek, Nedoma & Jerasek, p. 30, 2018). Generally, heuristics are easy to explain as well as understand (Katsikopoulos, 2011). They have developed from generalizations (which we will come back to when we explore inductive reasoning) and are reinforced by experiences (Meinert & Krämer, 2022). In terms of Kahneman and Tversky's work, heuristics are considered **system 1** thinking. So system 1 thinking, quick and intuitive, is what we use most often: it helps us function in our fast-paced world. Because it always strives for good enough and not most rational, however, it can make mistakes. The thinking itself can be subject to **cognitive biases**. Cognitive biases are systematic errors that result from heuristics.  Heuristics and cognitive biases in business ------------------------------------------- There are infinite ways in which heuristics and cognitive biases play a role in business. For example, **negativity bias** means that we remember negative comments more clearly and strongly than positive comments. And **primacy-recency bias** means that we'll often make decisions based on what we *remember* most clearly, instead of facts, circumstances, or other more neutral factors. Say you are browsing for restaurants in an unfamiliar-to-you area on Google Maps. You click back and forth between different options, read some of the top reviews, and keep some of the options in mind. Because we remember negative comments more strongly, any negative review you read early on for one of your choices will stick more strongly in your mind. And if you step away from your decision for a few minutes and then come back to make the final decision, you may decide against the option with the most negative words in the reviews you read, rather choosing the restaurant based on what you feel like eating, affordability, or other important-to-you dimension such as health, business of the restaurant, etc. (Oversimplified from Nazlan, Tanford, Montgomery, 2018) A study by Clikeman and Stevens (2019) also shows that even when students learn about rational decision making in subjects like managerial accounting, they still consistently fall prey to biases. In managerial accounting, "cost that remains the same under all decision alternatives is a sunk cost" (p.252) and considers it rational to ignore that cost in decision-making once it is spent. Opposed to managerial accounting is *mental* accounting, which is susceptible to biases. "Mental accounting is the tendency to \[...\] enter economic transactions into separate \[...\] mental files that remain open until an offsetting transaction \[a benefit\] occurs". One "common example is the argument that you *must* attend an event for which you purchased a ticket ahead of time. Mental accounting places the purchase of the ticket into a separate \[mental\] cost account that remains open until the corresponding benefit occurs. (p. 252). Consider the following questions: *1: Last week you paid \$100 for a ticket to a popular concert. On the day of the concert, a friend reminds you that your favorite local bar is having free pizza & drinks and you would really like to go with your friend. If you go to the local bar, you will not be able to get your money back for the concert ticket. Which of the following would you do?* A\) Use your ticket and go to the concert since you paid for it already. B\) Forget about the concert and go to your favorite local bar with your friend. *2: You won a ticket to a popular concert worth \$100. On the day of the concert, a friend reminds you that your favorite local bar is having free pizza & drinks and you would really like to go with your friend. If you go to the local bar, you will not be able to get your money back for the concert ticket. Which of the following would you do?* A\) Use your ticket and go to the concert. B\) Forget about the concert and go to your favorite local bar with your friend. What's your answer? Does it change depending on the situation? Rationally, at least to a managerial accountant, it makes the most sense to consider the ticket price a sunk cost. You already spent it. You won't get it back. So the "rational response is to \[...\] go to the event only if that is how time is best spent. The rational decision to go or not to go to an event occurs without regard to the ticket price." (Clikeman and Stevens, p. 352). Nevertheless, most people, including students who just completed a course in managerial accounting, would not choose rationally (answering B for both questions) but rather factor in the sunk cost. Their mental accounting file for the purchased ticket will remain open until the corresponding benefit (the concert attendance) occurs. If it does not, then they'll experience cognitive dissonance -- a state our brains do not like and work hard to avoid. So even if there is a bigger benefit to not attending the concert, and instead enjoying pizza and drinks with a friend, our mental accountant will cling to the \$100 we spent and encourage us to attend it anyway. Clikeman and Stevens found that this type of biased decision-making holds true not just in these behavioral problems, but also in accounting decisions. We cannot get into the details of this, but you can find the full article linked on Brightspace, if you're interested.  DEDUCTIVE REASONING **Exercise 11 - Part 1: Complete the following sentences** \- A deductive argument often uses \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ reasoning. \- In a deductive argument, we draw conclusions from \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \- If the conclusion follows from the premises, then we call the deductive argument \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \- If the conclusion follows from the premises AND the premises are true, then we call the deductive argument \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \- It is possible for a deductive argument to be valid but \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ but not for it to be sound but \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  **Exercise 11 - Part 2**: Read the following propositions (**bolded**) carefully and answer the questions (*italicized*) based on the information given in each proposition. NB: Your lecturer will assign each pair ONE of the 8 questions. After you have prepared a thorough explanation of the correct answer, you may also try your hand at answering the other ones, but start with your own assigned question! **PROPOSITON 1** **The Smith family from Devon have 4 English Mastiff dogs: Arvin the Great, Little Brody, Tiny Clive and Princess Diana.** 1. **(If) Arvin the Great weighs 175 pounds** 2. **(and) Little Brody weighs the same as Princess Diana.** 3. **(and) Tiny Clive is short in height.** 4. **(and) Princess Diana weighs 20 pounds less than Arvin the Great.** 5. **(and) Tiny Clive weighs 10 pounds more than Little Brody.** Assuming the premises above are true, is the conclusion below sound? 1. *Little Brody weighs 165 pounds.* a. Yes, it is sound b. No, it is not sound 2. *Tiny Clive weighs 165 pounds* a. Yes b. No c. 3. *Tiny Clive is the same height as Princess Diana.* a. Yes b. No **Proposition 2** 1. **At the rock concert, Aleksei sat in the row behind Harry** 2. **Harry sat in the row behind Alexandra** 3. **Alexandra sat in the row behind Aleksei** 4. *If premises 1 and 2 are true, then conclusion 3 is sound* a. Yes b. No **Proposition 3** **1. Xander's aquarium houses more goldfish than clownfish.** **2. There are more clownfish in the aquarium than there are anemones.** **3. The aquarium contains more goldfish than anemones.** 5. *If premises 1 and 2 are true, then conclusion 3 is sound* a. Yes b. No **Proposition 4** **1. The music studio where Jiayi takes her weekly guitar lessons is 4.5 kilometers south of the school she attends.** **2. Jiayi's house is 1 kilometer northeast of the school.** **3. Jiayi's house is west of the music studio.** *6. If premises 1 and 2 are true, then conclusion 3 is sound* a. Yes b. No **Proposition 5** **1. High productivity is one of the factors that leads to overall business success.** **2. High productivity can be found in a range of businesses, from unsuccessful to successful ones.** **3. When a company's employees are highly productive, the company must be successful.** *7. If premises 1 and 2 are true, then conclusion 3 is sound* a. Yes b. No **Proposition 7** **An optician, a teacher, a florist and a field engineer all live in the same building. Their names are Craig, Ahmed, Jon and Pao, not necessarily in that order.** **1. Ahmed and the field engineer are not friends with Jon.** **2. Craig and Ahmed are friends.** **3. Jon and the optician live on the same floor.** **4. The teacher is a friend of Pao and the florist.** *8. Based on the information provided, what is Jon's profession?* a. Teacher b. Florist c. Field engineer d. Optician e. Cannot be deduced A paper with text on it Description automatically generated Heuristics, biases and fallacies for TiA1: ------------------------------------------ **Sunk cost fallacy** Describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits. From: [[The Sunk Cost Fallacy - The Decision Lab]](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy) **Anchoring effect:** When we think too little our judgments can be skewed by irrelevant information that we happened to see, hear, or think about a moment ago. For example: if you first see a T-shirt that costs \$1,200 -- then see a second one that costs \$100 -- you\'re prone to see the second shirt as cheap. **Halo effect**: The common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions. During decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. For example: If you like the president's politics, you like his voice and his appearance as well. (Kahneman, 2011, p. 82-85)\ \ [Video explainer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlJt-Nr6oWw) **Negativity bias:** Bad emotions, bad parents, and bad feedback have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly than good. The self is more motivated to avoid bad self-definitions that to pursue good ones \[linked to loss aversion\] (cited in Kahneman, 2011, p. 302) **\ ** **Primacy-recency bias/effect** **Framing effect** The *framing effect* is when our decisions are influenced by the way information is presented. Equivalent information can be more or less attractive depending on what features are highlighted. From: [[Framing effect - The Decision Lab]](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/framing-effect)**\ ** **Inattentional blindness** **Confirmation bias** Describes our underlying tendency to notice, focus on, and give greater credence to evidence that fits with our existing beliefs. From: [[Confirmation Bias - The Decision Lab]](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/confirmation-bias) **Loss aversion bias** A cognitive bias that describes why, for individuals, the pain of losing is psychologically twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. The loss felt from money, or any other valuable object, can feel worse than gaining that same thing. Loss aversion refers to an individual's tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains. Simply put, it's better not to lose \$20, than to find \$20. From: [[Loss aversion - The Decision Lab]](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/loss-aversion) **Representativeness bias/heuristic** The *representativeness heuristic* is a mental shortcut that we use when estimating probabilities. When we're trying to assess how likely a certain event is, we often make our decision by assessing how similar it is to an existing mental prototype. The classic example used to illustrate this bias asks the reader to consider Steve, whom an acquaintance has described as "very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful, but with little interest in people, or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail." After reading a description of Steve, do you think it's more likely that Steve is a librarian, or a farmer?  Intuitively, most of us feel like Steve must be a librarian because he's more *representative* of our image of a librarian than he is our image of a farmer. As with all cognitive biases and heuristics, there is one main reason we rely on representativeness so often: we have limited cognitive resources. Every day, we make thousands of separate decisions, and our brains are wired to do so while conserving as much energy as possible. This means we often rely on [**[shortcuts]**](https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/society/tdl-perspectives-what-are-heuristics) to make quick judgments about the world. However, there is another major reason that the representativeness heuristic happens. It is rooted in the fundamental way that we perceive and understand people and objects. Where this bias occurs: Let's say you're going to a concert with your friend, Sarah. Sarah has also invited two of her friends, whom you've never met before. You know that one of them is a mathematician, while the other one is a musician. When you finally meet Sarah's friends, John and Adam, you see that John wears glasses and is a bit shy, while Adam is more outgoing and dressed in a T-shirt and jeans. Without asking what they do for a living, you assume that John must be the mathematician and Adam must be the musician. You later find out that you were mistaken: Adam does math, and John plays music. Quoted from [The Decision Lab](https://https/thedecisionlab.com/biases/representativeness-heuristic) Fallacies --------- [Exercise 12:] Can you identify the fallacies? [ ] **Match 1-11 with A-K. Note that the definitions for each fallacy are given in A-K.** 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. A. **Slippery slope** The conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction, and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place. B. **Hasty generalization** A general conclusion is drawn from atypical specific cases. C. **Bandwagon argument** The arguer plays on the reader's or listener's need to feel part of a group. D. **Mistaken causality** The cause and effect relationships are incorrectly established; a correlations is confused as causality E. **Argumentum ad hominem** Discrediting someone by attacking them personally instead of their argument F. **Appeal to emotion** Creating support for a point by appealing to the emotion G. **Appeal to authority** Just because someone is an authority on a certain subject, does not mean that he is informed about everything H. **Circular reasoning** Repeating the statement or claim instead of providing evidence. The point and the argument have the same content but are simply formulated differently I. **Incorrect comparisons/analogies** Comparing apples and oranges: in these analogies, two completely different situations are compared as being similar. J. **Anecdotal argument:** Using personal experience or a single occurrence as evidence. A generalization is made from a limited number of cases. K. **Red herring:** the arguer attempts to distract from the issue by introducing an unrelated point. (Adapted from: Hurley, Patrick J. *A Concise Introduction to Logic. 12^th^ ed., Cengage, 2015 and Avans Cue Card Fallacies*) Need more? The [playlist "Critical Thinking"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cum3k-Wglfw&list=PLtKNX4SfKpzX_bhh4LOEWEGy3pkLmFDmk) on the Wireless Philosophy YouTube channel has some great examples of fallacies, biases, and types of reasoning. **Exercise 13** 1. **Argumentation:** If I can't assess the investment option for myself, I might reason that I should trust the advice of a genuine investment advisor. That's not avoiding logical and critical thinking: it's reasoning about a matter related indirectly to the question I'm trying to settle. **Is there a fallacy here?** Y/N **Explain your answer:** 2. **Argumentation:** "Dear Editor, I read Doug Myer's letter yesterday but he is the CEO of a major brewing company! He has a vested interest in keeping alcohol sales up, and the anti-drink-driving campaign threatens to reduce alcohol sales. We shouldn't take any notice of his views about drinking and driving". 3. **Argumentation:** Student to Lecturer: I know I missed most of the lectures and all of my tutorials. But my family will be really upset if I fail this course. Can't you find a few more marks? **Name the fallacy:** 4. **Argumentation:** Don't get a credit card. If you do, you'll be tempted to spend money you don't have. Then you'll max out your card. Then you'll be in real debt. You'll have to start gambling in the hope of getting a big win. But you'll normally lose. Then you'll have to steal money to cover your losses. Then your partner will leave you. And you won't be able to feed the dog, and it'll die. And it would be bad if the dog died. So you mustn't get a credit card. **Name the fallacy**: 5. **Argumentation:** The oldest woman in the world, Jeanne Calment (122 years, 164 days) smoked until her early 110s. Therefore smoking isn't really bad for you. **Name the fallacy**: 6. **Argumentation:** I need a new car. My last three cars have all been reliable, and they were blue. So I'm going to buy a blue car. **Name the fallacy:** A picture containing graphical user interface Description automatically generated Overview of terms and definitions =================================================================================================================== +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Reasoning** | | A conscious and | | | | conscientious | | | | thinking process in | | | | which you arrive at a | | | | conclusion using | | | | data/information/grou | | | | nds. | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | **Argument** | | A series of | | | | statements used to | | | | support a specific | | | | conclusion/claim. | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Toulmin method** | | A way of | | | | (de)constructing | | | | reasoning into six | | | | discrete parts. In | | | | this course, we cover | | | | five of the six | | | | parts. | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Claim (Toulmin)** | | The conclusion or | | | | conviction. It can be | | | | an opinion, point of | | | | view, prediction, or | | | | judgment and should | | | | be formulated clearly | | | | and concretely. | | | | | | | | *Key question: What | | | | is the statement or | | | | conviction?* | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Grounds (Toulmin)** | | The supporting | | | | evidence of the | | | | claim. Good grounds | | | | are acceptable (the | | | | best possible proof) | | | | and relevant | | | | (applicable). | | | | | | | | *Key question: On | | | | what is the claim | | | | based?* | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Warrant (Toulmin)** | | The connection | | | | between the claim and | | | | the grounds, a bridge | | | | that is based on an | | | | underlying principle | | | | such as a | | | | generalization, | | | | analogy, causal | | | | relationship, | | | | authority, belief | | | | system etc.). | | | | | | | | *Key question: How | | | | does this relate?* | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Rebuttal | | The exceptions to the | | (Toulmin)** | | claim and | | | | counterpoints. | | | | | | | | *Key question: Is | | | | this always the | | | | case?* | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Qualifier | | The consequences of | | (Toulmin)** | | the rebuttal. | | | | Specifies the | | | | limitations of the | | | | claim. | | | | | | | | *Key question: What | | | | does the rebuttal | | | | mean for the | | | | formulation of the | | | | claim?* | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ **System 1** According to Kahneman et al., this type of thinking happens on autopilot. It is spontaneous, quick, parallel and happens without much effort. It relies on shortcuts in your brain, which are often useful but don't always lead to the best decisions. It is vulnerable to cognitive **biases**. --------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **System 2** According to Kahneman et al., this type of thinking happens consciously. It is deliberate and takes effort. It uses specific skills, such as the ability to analyze. It requires an open mind and an ability to consider alternatives. It should lead to better constructed arguments, but may still fall prey to **fallacies** and **biases**. **Cognitive bias** A systematic error in *thinking* that affects decisions and judgments. Systematic in this case means it is an error which occurs in a reasonably standard manner across comparable individuals within human population. There are many cognitive biases, such as loss aversion, the halo effect and confirmation bias. **Fallacy** An error in *reasoning* that affects the **strength** or **soundness** of an argument. For the purposes of this course, you are expected to know eleven separate fallacies. There are, however, many more. **Heuristics** A simple procedure that helps find adequate though often imperfect answers to difficult questions. In terms of Kahneman and Tversky's work, heuristics are considered **system 1** thinking. **Sunk cost fallacy** (fill in the gap) **Anchoring effect** **Halo effect** **Negativity bias** **Primacy-regency bias/effect** **Framing effect** **Inattentional blindness** **Confirmation bias** **\ ** **Exam fallacies** There are many fallacies out there -- you can't possibly be expected to know and recognize them all. We have selected a few crucial ones to be studied within the scope of this course. Make sure you know them and can recognize them: there will be questions on the exam! **[Red herring]** The arguer attempts to distract from the central issue at hand by introducing an unrelated idea or point.  [**Slippery slope** ] The conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged[^3^](#fn3){#fnref3.footnote-ref} chain reaction[^4^](#fn4){#fnref4.footnote-ref}, and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.  [**Hasty generalization** ] A general conclusion is drawn from atypical[^5^](#fn5){#fnref5.footnote-ref} specific cases.  [**Bandwagon argument** ] The arguer plays on the reader's or listener's need to feel part of a group.  [**Mistaken causality** ] The cause and effect relationships are incorrectly established; a correlation [^6^](#fn6){#fnref6.footnote-ref}is confused as causality [^7^](#fn7){#fnref7.footnote-ref} **[Argumentum ad hominem /personal attack]** Discrediting [^8^](#fn8){#fnref8.footnote-ref}someone by attacking them personally instead of their argument  **[Appeal to emotion ]** Creating support for a point by appealing to the emotions  **[Appeal to authority ]** Using an authority on a certain topic to give weight to an argument on a different or not quite relevant topic. Just because someone is an authority on a certain subject, does not mean that he is informed about everything  **[Circular reasoning ]** Repeating the statement or claim instead of providing evidence. The point and the argument have the same content but are simply formulated differently  **[Incorrect comparisons/analogies ]**[^9^](#fn9){#fnref9.footnote-ref} Comparing apples and oranges: in these analogies, two completely different situations are compared as being similar.  **[Anecdotal argument]** Using personal experience or a single occurrence as evidence. A generalization is made from a limited number of cases. **Examples of fallacies** [Red herring] Son: \"Wow, Dad, it\'s really hard to make a living on my salary.\" Father: \"Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made \$40 a week.\" [Slippery slope] We need to stop allowing colleges to increase tuition every year. The next thing we know, it\'s going to cost more to attend college for one semester than it is to buy a new home! [Hasty generalization] The flight attendant on this AirFrance flight was so rude. Guess it really is true that the French are rude people. [Bandwagon argument] All my favorite celebrities are drinking detox tea. I guess it's the thing to do and I should start drinking it too. [Mistaken causality] The Brazilian team played a bad match but when I went to the bathroom, they scored. My going to the bathroom made them play better. [Argumentum ad hominem (personal attack)] Only people with plenty of life experience can understand this, and you're clearly not old enough to give any input. [Appeal to emotion] If we do not stop this caravan of immigrants, they will take over our country, steal our jobs and kill hardworking citizens. [Appeal to authority] The United States Supreme Court decided tomatoes are a vegetable so scientists should stop calling it a fruit. [Circular reasoning] You should invite Jenna to the party because it would not be nice to not invite her. [Incorrect comparison/analogy] People have killed people with guns and with cars, so if we ban guns we should also ban cars. [Anecdotal argument] Tequila once made me very sick, so you should avoid tequila if you want to avoid being sick. **[Toulmin in action: example]** Harry is British (claim). He was born in Bermuda (grounds) and probably (qualifier) has British citizenship, as someone who is born in Bermuda, we can assume, generally has British citizenship (warrant), unless his parents were citizens of a different country or if he was naturalized as an American citizen (rebuttal). +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Step of Toulmin**  | **Question this step | **Your example** (or | | | addresses**  | use the visual | | | | overview) | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | Claim  | *What is your |   | | | argument?* In this | | | | case, what is your |   | | | belief? What point | | | | are you making? |   | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | Grounds  | *What is your | | | | evidence?* | | | | | | | | Cite data that | | | | supports your | | | | belief/the point you | | | | are making | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | Warrant  | *What reasoning |   | | | connects your | | | | evidence to your |   | | | argument? *  | | | | |   | | | Why/how does your | | | | cited data support |   | | | your belief/the point | | | | you are making? |   | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | Rebuttal  | *What are the |   | | | objections to this | | | | argument?*  |   | | | | | | | What would someone |   | | | say who disagrees | | | | with your belief/the |   | | | point you are making? | | | | |   | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | Qualifier  | *What are the limits |   | | | to your argument?*  | | | | |   | | | | | | | |   | | | | | | | |   | | | | | | | |   | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ **The Toulmin method-- 5 part (excluding Backing).**  Read the following article and complete the corresponding exercise on Brightspace. **How Social Media Endangers Knowledge** Wikipedia is in existential crisis. This has nothing to do with money. A couple of years ago, the site launched a panicky fundraising campaign, but ironically thanks to Donald Trump, Wikipedia has never been as wealthy or well-organized. American liberals, worried that Trump's rise threatened the country's foundational Enlightenment ideals, kicked in a significant flow of funds that has stabilized the nonprofit's balance sheet. That happy news masks a more concerning problem---a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website. It is another troubling sign of a general trend around the world: The very idea of knowledge itself is in danger. The idea behind Wikipedia---like all encyclopedias before it---has been to collect the entirety of human knowledge. It's a goal that extends back to the Islamic Golden Age, when numerous scholars---inspired by Muhammad\'s famous verdict of 'Seek knowledge, even from China'---set themselves to collecting and documenting all existing information on a wide variety of topics, including translations from Greek, Persian, Syrian, and Indian into Arabic. In Europe, the work to create a modern encyclopedia started with the Enlightenment in the 18th century. The religious ruling class's unhappiness with the work only helped its financial feasibility; there was an obvious market for these massive collections, often published in numerous volumes, for an increasingly non-religious middle-class. Only 17 years after the publication of the last volume of the Encylopedie in 1772, the French revolution began, leading to perhaps the most secular state in human history. That trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the Internet. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book *Amusing Ourselves to Death*, the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a written culture to an image-driven one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. The dominance of television fundamentally changed our experience of the world, affecting the conduct of politics, religion, business, and culture. It reduced many aspects of modern life to entertainment, sensationalism, and commerce. "Americans don't talk to each other, we entertain each other," Postman wrote. "They don't exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials." At first, the Internet seemed to push against this trend. When it emerged towards the end of the 80s as a purely text-based medium, it was seen as a tool to pursue knowledge, not pleasure. Reason and thought were most valued in this garden---all derived from the project of Enlightenment. It was an intellectual project, not about commerce or control, created in a scientific research center in Switzerland. Wikipedia was the result of this intellectual project. So was Google search and its text-based advertising model. And so were blogs, which valued text, hypertext (links), knowledge, and literature. They effectively democratized the ability to contribute the global knowledge. For more than a decade, the web created an alternative space that threatened television's grip on society. Social networks, though, have since taken over the web for in a way similar to television. Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals---'like' buttons---over rational ones. Instead of a quest for knowledge, it engages us in an endless search for instant approval from an audience, for which we are constantly but unconsciously performing. Now the challenge is to save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television---how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know. Television has even infected Wikipedia itself---today many of the most popular entries tend to revolve around television series or their cast. This doesn't mean it is time to give up. But we need to understand that the decline of the web and thereby of the Wikipedia is part of a much larger civilizational shift which has just started to unfold. Adapted from: "How Social Media Endangers Knowledge" by Hossein Derakhshan (*Wired*, 2017) \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Read the following article and complete the exercise below. **Detox Diets Aren\'t Real or Healthy --- and Body \"Toxins\" Don\'t Exist** *They can also be harmful to your health.* **By Brittney McNamara** It happens every time the holidays roll around: You start seeing ads for cleanses. Trendy diets are pushed on social media to start in the new year. Celebs keep peddling those \"flat tummy teas\" that don\'t actually work. Most of all, the word \"detox\" starts getting thrown around an awful lot --- but what does it actually mean? Of course, this phenomenon is far from new. But now, with words like \"retox\" and \"pretox\" entering the lexicon, it seems like a good time to send a reminder that, when it comes to so-called detox diets or cleanses meant to help you recover from a period of consuming more food than you usually would, there\'s really no point. \"I would say the bottom line is that there really isn't any clear evidence that detox or cleansing programs can actually make you healthier or improve your health, or that it removes \'toxins\' from your body,\" Navya Mysore, MD, a primary care provider at One Medical tells *Teen Vogue*. Still, Dr. Mysore notes it\'s something she gets asked about frequently in her practice, from patients wanting to fast before an event (so-called pretoxing) or doing juice cleanses, shake diets, or colonics after a period of eating more or different foods than usual. Generally, Dr. Mysore says she discourages patients from these things for a number of reasons. \"There are a lot of other safety points that need to be considered,\" Dr. Mysore says. \"Right now there\'s a shake that people are using that has some really awesome ingredients, but a lot of other additives that we don't really know the safety profile of. They can be harmful.\" When it comes to detox teas that celebrities promote on social media, we know those can be dangerous and lead to symptoms like diarrhea and intense stomach cramping. For people with certain conditions, Dr. Mysore notes that things like juice cleanses or shakes can have adverse health effects as well. Safety is tantamount, but there\'s also the fact that \"detoxing\" just isn\'t necessary. We have organs built into our bodies with the purpose of filtering out the things that we don\'t need. According to the National Kidney Foundation, the kidneys work to eliminate waste from the body and regulate our fluids --- in other words, they get rid of the bad stuff. And according to the National Institutes of Health, the liver also has our back. That organ works to, among other functions, make sure \"toxic substances\" get filtered out of the body. So, can a juice cleanse really do more than the human body? No, according to Dr. Mysore. \"Your body does what it needs to do, no matter what,\" she says. \"Whether it\'s on Thanksgiving or January 1, your body is doing what it needs to do.\" But in case you need more convincing beyond detoxing not being safe or necessary, it\'s not even clear whether the \"toxins\" we\'re trying to rid ourselves of are real. Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, told *The Guardian *in 2014 that detoxing, when it\'s not the medical kind to help someone with substance use disorder, is largely pseudoscience. \"There are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other isn't,\" he said. "The other is the word being hijacked by entrepreneurs, quacks, and charlatans to sell a bogus treatment that allegedly detoxifies your body of toxins you're supposed to have accumulated." As *The Guardian* article continues, it\'s unclear what even constitutes a toxin, and Dr. Mysore agrees. \"I wouldn't say there are toxins in our bodies,\" she says. \"There are things we have excess of. When we take a multivitamin, often our urine is a different color. It\'s usually excess from what the body doesn't need. So, I don't even use the word \'toxins\' because it doesn't really exist.\" Categorizing excess as toxins, Dr. Mysore says, is a misnomer. Calling these things toxins implies that we\'re always doing something bad that needs fixing, when in fact, she says the key to good health is simply, balance. \"It\'s OK to \[\...\] have a cupcake and enjoy that. But also try to maintain during the week that you are getting what you need to stay healthy,\" she says. \"Whole food, real food, exercise, moving, taking care of your stress level. A lot of what people tend to do is they want a quick fix. It\'s sort of demystifying that and reeducating.\" So, take this as your reeducation. Don\'t listen to celebrities on Instagram or whatever so-called wellness trends emerge in the new year. Instead, focus on the tried-and-true method of treating your body well. Dr. Mysore recommends drinking water if you feel like you want to \"flush out\" your system. Beyond that, she stresses getting exercise and eating whole foods. And if you have a period of time in which you don\'t do those things, that\'s OK. Ultimately, Dr. Mysore says it\'s about the bigger picture. McNamara, B. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from h**ttps://www.teenvogue.com/story /detox-diets-arent-real-or-healthy-and-body-toxins-dont-exist** \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Decide whether the following statements are true or false, *based on the information in the article*. 1. It is clear what people mean when they start talking about "detoxing" after the holidays. 2. Detoxing is necessary to recover from a period of excessively consuming food and drink 3. There's no scientific evidence for the health benefits of detoxing. 4. Shake diets are inherently different from detox diets. 5. There are risks to detoxing. 6. The kidneys and liver just can't do all the detoxing a body needs, because of how many chemicals are all around us. 7. It's quite unclear which toxins a detox diet is supposed to help us get rid of. 8. There's no such thing as a medically necessary or recommended detox. 9. When there's too much of a certain chemical in your body, it always becomes toxic. Read the following article and complete the exercise below. **The Importance of Detoxing Your Body** In 1998, I was filming *The Talented Mr. Ripley* in Ischia, a little island off the coast of Naples in Italy. I got a call that changed my life. My father had been diagnosed with throat cancer, and it was stage four. Although he underwent treatment and survived for another four years, I watched his health deteriorate slowly until his death in 2002. During this time I began to read about Eastern medicine and the body's capacity to heal itself. I tried to get my father on board--- with mixed results. He loved acupuncture but hated macrobiotic food, which he likened to "biting into The New York Times." I had read somewhere that in Asia, the concept of going to the doctor when you were already sick was akin to digging a well when you were already thirsty. This struck a chord with me. Over the years I have had my share of medical issues, as we all do. Recently I have found three doctors (one in London, one in New York and one in Los Angeles) who have helped me tremendously. Heeding their advice has helped me out of some very sticky health problems (pneumonia, anemia, stress, etc.). Below they offer their points of view and some ideas about how we can achieve our best health. Here is Dr. Junger on the subject. Love, gp **Another Inconvenient Truth** The human body is a self-healing, self-renewing, self-cleansing organism. When the right conditions are created, vibrant well-being is its natural state. We have departed from the ways of nature and live under less than natural conditions. Like global warming, the toxicity of our planet is undeniable. I call it "Another Inconvenient Truth." The air we breathe, the water we drink and shower with, the foods we eat, the cosmetics we use and the buildings we live and work in, are loaded with toxic chemicals that alone or in combination cause disease, suffering and even death. When we remove these obstacles and add what is lacking, our bodies bounce back into health as if by magic. This is natural, common-sense medicine, enabling the body to heal, regenerate and even rejuvenate itself. With this in mind, if you live in a modern city and want to stay healthy, there are two fundamental practices to follow: detoxification cleansing and eating real foods, just as nature intended food to be. **1. Detoxification Cleansing** Approximately eight hours after eating our last meal the processes of digestion, absorption, and assimilation are completed and the body enters into detoxification mode, a function we don't think about often. A healthy body, used to eating natural foods, needs around four hours to cleanse and detoxify itself from all the waste products of normal metabolism. This is without counting the toxic overload of modern life. It's a really good practice to fast every day for 12 hours after our last meal: Eight hours to complete food processing plus four to allow for detoxification. So if your last meal is at 10pm, don't eat anything before 10am. Breakfast should be exactly that, break-fast, or breaking the fast. This would be enough in a toxin-free world. Since that is not the case, we should periodically make an extra effort to go deeper and catch up with the cleaning, as it were. This is where detox cleansing programs come into play. There are many programs available today based on different systems and philosophies of healing. Some are great, some dangerous. Make sure someone who understands and has experience guides you. How often and for how long one should engage in detox programs depends on how clean one is to begin with. In addition to all of the above, one should educate oneself as to how to keep our environment toxin-free. Water and air filters, eco-cleaning utensils, chemical free cosmetics, green architecture, alternative fuel vehicles... **2. Eat Real Foods** We used to pick our food from trees and the earth, and hunt or fish for the rest. Now we buy it in modern supermarkets. Ninety percent of the products in supermarkets come in some kind of container. In order to extend shelf life, these food-like products are loaded with chemicals, preservatives, and conservatives that kill bacteria. Most products also contain additives to give them the color, smell, taste, and texture that will tempt us to buy and eat them. The remaining 10% of what is edible---the produce, the fish, the meats and the dairy products---are loaded with chemicals as well. All of these chemicals cause havoc inside our bodies, being the most intimate source of toxins for us since we throw this mixture in our bellies and soon enough it passes into our blood. Returning to a more natural way of eating is the best way to avoid disease and premature aging. It also keeps the weight off. Buy organic foods, shop in your local farmer's markets. Increase the consumption of vegetables, fruits, seeds, grains, and legumes. More raw foods are better for health (enzymes remain intact), the environment (smaller carbon footprint), and the pocket (lower utility bills). To round things up, don't forget to nourish your soul. The future of medicine is "no medicine." If we return to a more natural life, our bodies become the best doctors. **With love,\ Alejandro Junger, MD** *Dr. Alejandro Junger is a cardiologist who practices integrative healing. He currently sees patients in his private practice at the Eleven Eleven Wellness Center in New York and, in 2008, he was named the Director of Integrative Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital.* Junger, A. (n.d.). The importance of detoxing your body. Retrieved from : https://goop.com/wellness/detox/the-importance-of-detoxing-your-body/ \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Decide whether the following statements are true or false*, based on the information in the article*. 1. GP's father survived his stage four cancer for four years as a result of Eastern medicine. 2. Everything on the planet is toxic and slowly killing us. 3. A healthy body can detoxify itself. 4. Fasting is important to the natural detoxification process. 5. Detox programs are always safe, when entered into and followed correctly. 6. Chemicals added to food are toxic. 7. Food toxins are less important than toxins in cosmetics and in our environment. Compare the two articles about detoxing by answering the following questions. 1\. Where was each article published? 1b. What do you know about these publications? What can you find out? 2\. How do the authors add authority to their arguments? 3\. Which do you think is the strongest point made in the first article? And in the second? You can use a quote from the article or write it in your own words. 4\. Which do you think is the weakest point made in the first article? And in the second? You can use a quote from the article or write it in your own words. 5\. Which article do you find most convincing? Why? 5\. For both the strongest and the weakest argument in each article, add the grounds, warrant and rebuttal. Grounds Warrant Rebuttal ------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------- Strongest argument article 1: Strongest argument article 2: Weakest argument article 1: Weakest argument article 2: ::: {.section.footnotes} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ::: {#fn1} From Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. 14. Hermosa Beach, CA: Measured Reasons, LLC.[↩](#fnref1){.footnote-back} ::: 2. ::: {#fn2} Note that formally, there are six parts, but because we needed to simplify somewhat, the course creators decided to leave out the "backing."[↩](#fnref2){.footnote-back} ::: 3. ::: {#fn3} Not proven, in this context potentially false[↩](#fnref3){.footnote-back} ::: 4. ::: {#fn4} A series of events, each one caused by the one before[↩](#fnref4){.footnote-back} ::: 5. ::: {#fn5} Unusual, uncommon[↩](#fnref5){.footnote-back} ::: 6. ::: {#fn6} Two or more things are closely related, for instance in time,[↩](#fnref6){.footnote-back} ::: 7. ::: {#fn7} There is an established cause/effect relationship[↩](#fnref7){.footnote-back} ::: 8. ::: {#fn8} Harm someone's reputation[↩](#fnref8){.footnote-back} ::: 9. ::: {#fn9} A comparison between one thing and another, usually for purposes of clarification[↩](#fnref9){.footnote-back} ::: :::