Critical Thinking Vocabulary

Pregunta	Respuesta
BELIEF	= STATEMENT
STATEMENT	The assertion that something is or is not.
EXPLANATION	Tells us WHY or HOW something is the case .(doesn't deliver conclusion)
ARGUMENT	A GROUP of STATEMENTS in which some statements (Premises) are intended to support another statement (Conclusion)
PREMISE	Statement that supports the conclusion
PREMISE INDICATORS	Because; In view of the fact; Given that; Seeing that; As; Due to the fact; Being that; since; assuming that; For the reason that; As indicated by; For the reason being.
CONCLUSION	Statement supported by premises.
CONCLUSION INDICATORS	Therefore; Thus; Consequently; Which implies that; So; Hence; It follows that; It must be that; as a result; which means that; Ergo.
OBSTACLES to Critical Thinking	Psychological (how we think) Philosophical (what we think)
PSYCHOLOGICAL OBSTACLES	Self-interest Group pressure Saving FACE
PHILOSIPHICAL OBSTACLES	Subjective Relativism Subjective Fallacy Social Relativism Philosophical Skepticism
SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM	Truth dependent on BELIEF.
WORLDVIEW	A philosophy of life and set of fundamental ideas one may have that helps make sense of issues and concepts.
SOCIAL RELATIVISM	The thought truth is relative to societies. That truth is not dependent on the individual but societies or cultures.
PHILOSOPHICAL SKEPTICISM	The skeptics say knowledge required CERTAINTY. Knowledge is not knowledge until it beyond any possible doubt.
2 KINDS OF ARGUMENTS	DEDUCTIVE: The GUARANTEE! - The Truth Preserver INDUCTIVE: The PROBABLY: The Educated guess.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS	If a deductive argument SUCCEEDS, it is a VALID argument. If a deductive argument FAILS, it is an INVALID argument. It’s the structure + logic within that makes something valid/invalid. - CONCLUSIVE Valid does not mean TRUE.
VALID	The STRUCTURE of the argument is LOGICAL and guarantees proof of the CONCLUSION. (It’s not based on who is in the building, it’s based on how well the building holds the people inside.)
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS	Probable, but not conclusive. an inductive argument that provides PROBABLE but not conclusive support is called STRONG. if an inductive argument FAILS at providing probable support, it is called WEAK. Remember, there are no guarantees here.
SOUND ARGUMENT	When a deductive argument has true premises.
COGNET ARGUMENT	When an inductively strong argument has true premises.
IF	Antecedent
THEN	Consequent.
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM	Deductive argument made up of 3 statements. (2 Premises; 1 Conclusion) If P, then Q. If Q, then R. Therefore, if P, then R.
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM	EITHER P, or Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.
VALID ARGUMENT FORMS	Affirming the Antecedent Denying the Consequent Hypothetical Syllogism
INVALID ARGUMENT FORMS	Denying the Antecedent Affirming the Consequent Disjunctive Syllogism
AFFIRMING THE ANTECEDENT	If P, then Q P. Therefore, Q.
DENYING THE CONSEQUENT	If P, then Q NOT Q Therefore, not P
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT	IF P, then Q Q Therefore P.
DENYING THE ANTECEDENT	IF P, then Q NOT P Therefore, not Q.
FALLACIES	Flawed Argument
2 KINDS OF FALLACIES	Fallacies with IRRELEVANT premises Fallacies with UNACCEPTABLE premises
IRRELEVANT PREMISES	Genetic Fallacy Composition Devision Appeal to the person Equivocation Appeal to popularity Appeal to tradition Appeal to ignorance Appeal to emotion Red Herring Straw Man 2 Wrongs make a right
GENETIC FALLACY	Dismissing the argument because of where it came from.
COMPOSITION	Thinking that WHOLE is true because a PART of it is true.
DEVISION	What is true of the WHOLE, is true of the PARTS.
APPEAL TO THE PERSON	CRITICIZING THE PERSON who makes the claim opposed to criticizing the CLAIM itself.
EQUIVOCATION	Using one word in 2 different ways. ex: Laws can only be created by Law-givers. There are many laws in nature. Therefore, there must be a Law-giver, namely, God.
APPEAL TO POPULARITY	Arguing a claim is true because a large number of people believe it.
APPEAL TO TRADITION	Arguing a claim is true because it’s part of a tradition.
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE	Arguing the lack of evidence proves something.
APPEAL TO EMOTION	Using emotions as a premise in an argument.
RED HERRING	“Throwing a curveball” - bringing up an irrelevant issue during an argument.
STRAW MAN	Oversimplifying someone’s position so it can be more easily attacked.
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT	Arguing that you’re doing something morally wrong because someone else has done the same.
FALACIES	Sounds like arguments, but they're not. Focused on rhetoric, not structure.
FALLACIES WITH UNACCEPTABLE PREMISES	Begging the Question False Dilemma Slippery Slope Hasty Generalization Faulty Analogy
BEGGING THE QUESTION	Using the Conclusion as a Premise. P Therefore, P.
FALSE DILEMMA	Asserting there are only 2 choices when there is more than 2.
SLIPPERY SLOPE	Arguing, without good reasons, that a step will lead to another undesirable step.
HASTY GENERALIZATION	Drawing a conclusion about a group based on a small sample size.
FAULTY ANALOGY	Things being compared aren't sufficiently similar.
RHETORICAL MOVES	Innuendo Euphemism Stereotyping Ridicule
INNUENDO	A suggestion towards something.
EUPHEMISM	Replacing words with other words for a desired effect. (To be more/less blunt)
STEREOTYPING	Unwarranted generalization.
RIDICULE	Sarcasm & mockery to disparage an idea.
EXPERT	A person more knowledgeable in a particular subject area or field than most others are.
RELY ON BOGUS EXPERT OPINION	Appeal to Authority
IMPAIRMENT	stress, injury, distraction, emotional upset.
EXPECTATIONS	We often perceive exactly what we want to perceive.
QUESTIONS FOR DEFENSE (against news casts etc)	Was that a SLANT? What was that SOURCE? Are there MISSING facts? Did you just PRESSURE me?
NARCISSISM	The thought that your idea is an extension of who you are.

Siguiente

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por anlezia.venter hace más de 9 años