Critical thinking by asking the right questions

Although we are generally prone to be receptive to opinions—professors, news reports or political propaganda, critical thinking is more or less emphasized by some who is sincere to intellectual progress. However, even those who call for critical thinking fall shorting of answering two questions. First, what is critical thinking and why is it important? Critical thinking is surely not acceptance without first examining the opinion, but is it equivalent to baseless critic? Second, maybe the more crucial one, how to be a critical thinker? It’s never wrong to claim for critical thinking, but only when we figure out the effective methods are we able to be truly critical in intellectual thinking.

 

These two often neglected questions are answered in M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley’s bookasking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking. They present in this book the meaning of critical thinking as well as the benefit of critical thinking. Then, by teaching us how to ask the right questions, the authors show us a guideline to conduct our critical thinking process. As a specific guide, they are not in the main concerned with theory on logic rules, for example, the controversial issue on causality; so far as they are concerned, methods and skills involving evaluation of arguments are discussed and illustrated.

 

It is the purpose of this report to outline the main points, structures and implications of the book. First I will present uncritically M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley’s view on critical thinking—the conception, benefit and qualifications. Then I will discuss how to conduct a critical thinking by examining step by step in their methods: first the structure of the argument, and then the logic and finally the merit of the evidence.

 

1. Critical thinking: the meaning and benefit

Our daily life, especially intellectual life, is to some extent about making and evaluating argument. As M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley suggest in the opening paragraph of the book, it can be evaluating the review of a movie, on which to base our decision whether to see that movie. Then the question becomes, why should we accept one and reject another? Provided that there are always conflicting opinions or in the market of opinions, “How are we consumers of opinions to respond?”

 

On their view, “listening and reading critically is reacting with systematic evaluation to what you have heard and read”. Critical thinking refers to

(1) Awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions;

(2) Ability to ask and answer critical questions at appropriate times; and the

(3) Desire to actively use the critical questions. (p2)

 

They hold that by critical thinking, we will benefit when we are forming an argument, writing an essay or judging a speech. By comparing critical thinking to the plan-for-gold approach, they suggest that to be a critical thinker, we should be aware of the following questions:

Did I ask "why" someone wants me to believe something?

Did I take notes as I thought about potential problems with what was being said?

Did I evaluate what was being said?

Did I form my own conclusion about the topic?

 

Such an approach is beneficial in that “a powerful advantage of these questions is that they permit you to ask searching questions even when you know very little about the topic being discussed”. (p7)Another benefit is manifested in situations like human actions where “right answer” is difficult to achieve. Critical thinking renders us the “skills to develop our best and most reasonable answer, given the nature of the problem and the available information.” Moreover, a truly critical thinking saves a lot of time by excluding us from the trivial issues that deserve no argument, for example, “whether blue is the favorite color of most corporate executives”. They also argue that quality of your writing and speaking will be improved as one becomes a critical thinker.

 

2. Critical thinking and the right questions

 

In the final paragraph of the introduction on critical thinking, M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley instances eleven questions essential in evaluating the arguments of others:

1. What are the issues and the conclusions?

2. What are the reasons?

3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous?

4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?

5. What are the descriptive assumptions?

6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

7. How good is the evidence?

8. Are there rival causes?

9. Are the statistics deceptive?

10. What significant information is omitted?

11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?

 

I will demonstrate the relationship of these questions by the table underneath:

 

 

Reasons: causes, evidences (Statistics, research, surveys and case examples)

Conclusions

Unstated assumptions: Values and factual assumptions

 

                                                                               Reasoning: are there any

                                                                                     fallacies?

                                         +                                   

                              

An argument consists of three parts: conclusion, reasons and the reasoning, and the conclusion and reasons are the contents of the argument, while the reasoning is the form of argument. The evaluation of reasons can only resort to the facts, meaning whether they can be testified by factual observation. The reasoning is subject to logical rules, under the test of effective or not; and the evaluation of conclusion is the combination by the two, which means that whether it sustains given the reasons and reasoning. By this demonstration, questions 1, 2, 3 fall under the category of contents, constituting an explicit structure of the argument. Questions 4 and 5 are also concerned with the content of the argument, since the assumptions unstated can be analyzed out of the explicit forms of the argument. Question 6 deals with the effect of the logical reasoning of the argument, provided that we have already found the conclusion and reasons of the argument, is the reasoning effective, or put in other words, can the reasons lead logically to the conclusions?

 

Questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 remind us to be careful of the evidences for there are certain evidences that are seemingly plausible but questionable in a critical thinker’s eyes. Such evidences include research studies, surveys, testimonials, case examples and the like, which scream close scrutiny. The eleventh question is a reverse way in critical thinking, for the earlier questions are all in a linear pattern, based on the explicit reasons and conclusions stated in the argument, while the conclusion is reminded to be recomtemplated. It calls for an alternative conclusion, avoiding the rigid answer of yes or no, instead, a qualified answer with limitations, based on the given reasons.

 

Now let’s examine the questions one by one. As I have just mentioned, this book is more concerned with practical guidelines of skills than a theoretical analysis of logical rules, so my illustration here will also limit to some example in each section.

 

First of all, in invalidating the argument, we must understand what someone is talking about, namely, the point at issue. The two authors tell us that issue is sometimes explicitly stated by asking questions like why must we have speed limits on our highways? Most of the time, the issue will be found at the begining of a paragraph or in the title of the passage.

 

When the issue is implicit, a practical way is to track the conclusion. In finding the conclusion, we should focus on the title or the topic of the article. Most of the time, a conclusion will appear in the first or last sentence of the paragraph. Some indicator words can help us find the conclusion effectively: consequently, suggests that, hence, therefore and the like. Remember that examples, statistics, definitions or background information are not conclusions.

 

The authors continue their discussion to reasons. “Reasons are beliefs, evidence, metaphors, analogies, and other statements offered to support or justify conclusions. They are the statements that together form the basis for creating the credibility of a conclusion.” Reasons can be found in the following positions of the argument, when there are words like: as a result of, for the reason that, because of, is supported by.

 

In dealing with reasons, we must bear in mind two things: first, try to avoid your preexisting conclusion and then find reasons to justify it; second, try to avoid your preexisting conclusion and then find reasons to justify it.

 

In stating an argument, the important thing is the accuracy and clarity of the words, “no one has the right to be believed if he cannot provide you with a clear picture of his reasoning”. Therefore, we must pay attention to the ambiguity of the conceptions in the argument. Ambiguity is a trick often employed by politicians and advertisements. They are either intentional or unconscious in using ambiguous words to persuade us into believing their views. For example, social justice or excellent in quality are all ambiguous words. To track ambiguity, we should ask ourself, do understand the words? By examining the key terms and abstract words, we can trap the ambiguity existing in the argument.

 

Assumptions, defined as unstated reasons, take in two forms: the values and facts. Values are standards of conduct that we endorse and expect people to meet. The communicator's Background and the consequences of the argument are general clues in discerning the assumptions underlying the argument. We can also find the values by asking questions, for example, "What do those people who would take a different position from the writer's care about?" Factual assumptions are gaps between the conclusion and the reason. We can find the factual assumptions by keeping thinking about the gap between the conclusion and reasons, asking, for example, supposing the reason(s) were true, are there any way in which the conclusion nevertheless could be false?

 

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. Typical fallacies include, Ad Hominem, meaning that a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument; appeal to authority, appeal to common sense, appeal to tradition or begging for question, meaning the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

 

An argument only sustains with adequate evidences. Evidence can be intuition personal experience, testimonials, appeals to authorities, personal observations, case examples, research studies, analogies. These evidences can usually be questionable, either because the people who make them are biased or the method is inadequate. For example, for example, intuition, which claims that "common sense tells us" or "I just know that it's true". When intuitive beliefs differ, we have no solid basis for deciding which ones to believe. Another example is personal testimonials, they can be false because the person who testifies may have personal interest in the testimony; they provide inadequate information, and; they are the group people who are enthusiastic in persuasion.

 

The research studies needs more thorough examination, for are usually in the language of science. We must notice that research study has its own difficulties:

1) Research varies greatly in quality, namely there are both well done and poorly done research, so we must bear in mind that research is not in itself credible once published.

2) Research findings often contradict one another. Thus, single research studies presented out of the context of the family of research studies that investigate the question often provide misleading conclusions.

3) Research findings do not prove conclusions. At best, they support conclusions. They do not automatically tell us what the conclusion is, rather, they need to be interpreted by the research as how they support their conclusion.

4) Researchers have expectations, attitudes, values, and needs that bias the questions they ask, the way they conduct their research, and the way they interpret their research findings

5) Speakers and writers often distort or simplify research conclusions

6) Research "facts" change over time, especially claims about human behavior.

7) Research varies in how artificial it is. The more artificial the research, the more difficult it is to generalize from the research study to the world outside.

8) The need for financial gain, status, security, and other factors can affect research outcomes.

Critical questions can always be asked, if we take the listed difficulties into consideration.

 

Causality is an important issue in logical sense, but it is not discussed in detail, with only rival cause concerned. The authors think that one cause alone is hardly the cause of certain result; instead multiple cause or rival causes are always possible. We can identify the rival cause by asking questions like:

 Can I think of any other way to interpret the evidence?

 What else might have caused this act or these findings?

 If I looked at this from another point of view, what might I see as important causes?

 If this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretation might make sense?

 

There are also some fallacies in causal relationship, including confusing correlation or association with cause; mistaking simitulataneous or consequential relationship as causality.

Another important source of evidence is statistics. According to M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley, they can also deceptive despite their seemingly persuasiveness. First of all, we must notice that the way they are collected is in itself questionable; second, there are different ways in presenting statistics, for example, the absolute numbers and percentages can be quite confusing sometimes. There are three ways in stating “average”: mean, median, and the mode, with each numbers vary much sometimes. Therefore, M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley suggest that we should know much more information before accepting the argument. For instances, what other statistics is needed to prove the conclusion? 

 

 

3. Conclusions

Our life is encroached by the noise of biased news, uninformed advertisements, and inclined political propaganda, even the apparent unbiased scientific research is blemished sometimes by the researcher’s self-interests and method flaws. How are we able to make sound and reasonable judgments? This book may throw some light upon us. With critical thinking in our arsenal, we may be at least not as easily deceived as those who wishfully hope.

 

M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley point out the “principle of charity” in discussion of reasons, maintaining that, “as you determine a communicator's reasoning structure, you should treat any idea that seems to be used to support her conclusion as a reason, even if you do not believe it provides support for the conclusion.” This has two implications. On the one hand, we must first make sense of other’s arguments before we begin rebuttal. Baseless critics will lead to nothing by meaningless quibble. On the other hand, we should also make our points clear to make a possibly well-ground debate.

 

In a world filled with opinions, we are often confused or even trapped in dilemma, which opinion to adopt, for they are quite to the contrary? One may ask. I think the answer should not be A or B, rather, to evaluate them and make our own judgment. By asking the critical questions, be critical in the communicators’ reasoning, evidences and unstated assumptions, we are able to form our own ideas, receiving more reasonable insight, less ungrounded assertions.