Bullet point summary -Critical thinking 12th edition (EN)

What is critical thinking? - CH.1

• We think critically when we use our reasoning to come to conclusions. Conclusions are beliefs: these are propositional and can be true or false.
• Critical thinking involves three things: (1) statements, (2) issues, and (3) arguments. Claims can be objective or subjective. An argument consists of a premise (a statement that is used as a reason to prove that another statement is true) and a conclusion.
• "Cognitive bias" is a belief that is influenced by unconscious characteristics of human psychology. These biases influence the way in which information is processed. Heuristics are general rules that we use unconsciously when estimating probabilities.
• A claim is "true" when it is free from error. When you believe something, you have a strong argument that you have no doubts about and have no reason to think you are wrong, you can claim that you know something.

Two ways of reasoning - CH.2

• Arguments always consist of two parts: a premise (or multiple premises) and a conclusion. The same claim can serve as a premise in one argument and as a conclusion in another.
• Reasoning can be done in two ways: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is used to prove a claim, while an inductive argument is used to support a claim.
• An argument is valid when it is impossible that at the same time the premises are true and the conclusion false.
• Support is a matter of gradation and not of an all-or-nothing principle. An argument that gives more evidence for a conclusion is stronger than an argument that gives less evidence for a conclusion. Despite the fact that some people use strong inductive evidence as an absolute term, the word "strong" in this context is therefore relative.
• There are three levels of beliefs: (1) ethos, (2) logos, and (3) pathos.
• If you find it difficult to distinguish (parts of) arguments in a written piece, then it is an idea to make a diagram.

How do you write a good text? - CH.3

• A term is called vague when it is not clear what the limits of the concept are. Ambiguity occurs when a word or sentence has more than one meaning and can therefore be understood in different ways. Three types of ambiguity are distinguished: (1) semantic, (2) group related, and (3) syntactic ambiguity.
• Definitions have the following four goals: (1) by definitions we can know what words mean, (2) by means of definitions we can give a special meaning to a word in some contexts, (3) we use definitions to make vagueness, avoid ambiguity and generalization, and (4) definitions can be used to convince people.
• There are three types of definitions: (1) definitions based on examples, (2) definitions based on synonyms, and (3) analytical definitions.
• An essay consists of the following four components: (1) a clarification of the subject, (2) an explanation of one's own opinion about that subject, (3) arguments that support one's own opinion, and (4) the invalidation of the arguments of people who have a different opinion on the subject.

When is something credible? - CH.4

• Claims are lacking in credibility when they contradict our observations or do not match our experiences or background knowledge or when they come from unreliable sources. In this context, uninterested parties are less credible than other sources.
• When we talk about credibility of a source, we can talk about two things: (1) whether the source has enough knowledge about the subject he or she is talking about and (2) whether the source is reliable, objective and is accurate. Whether someone has enough knowledge about a subject depends on someone's expertise and experience.
• One of the reasons why the quality of the news has decreased is that television channels in America are now owned by a small number of cooperatives. It is important to keep an eye on three things about the credibility of the media: (1) people in the media make mistakes just like we do; (2) the media can experience pressure from the government and are sensitive to manipulation; and (3) most media want to make a profit.
• Commercials in which no reasons are given for purchasing a product consist of three categories: (1) commercials that unleash feelings within us, (2) commercials that show that people we admire use the product, and (3) commercials who show a product in a situation that we would like to find ourselves in.

How does persuasion work? - CH.5

• Rhetoric is about research into convincing writing.
• Rhetoric methods can be divided into different groups of methods. The first group usually consists of single words or short phrases that are positive or negative; called slanters. The second group of methods are dependent on unlawful assumptions. The third group consists of methods that deal with humour. Group 4 consists of methods that use definitions, explanations and analogies.
• A euphemism is used to express something as positive or neutral instead of negative. A dysphemism is the opposite of a euphemism and is therefore used to evoke a negative feeling in someone.
• Rhetoric analogies occur when two things are compared, so that one of those things will look better or worse. Rhetoric definitions are emotion-focused and try to provoke a certain attitude.
• "Demagogues" use an extreme form of rhetoric to spread false ideas and to gain power over people. Four rhetorical techniques that are used for this are otherizing, demonizing, reinforcing xenophobia and fear and hate mongering.

How does relevance work? - CH.6

• A thinking error is a reasoning error; an argument that does not support its content. With a relevant thinking error, the premise is not relevant to the issue. Such a fallacy is also called a "red herring".
• The "argumentum ad hominem" is the most common mistake. We hereby assess a claim made by someone based on the source of the claim and not so much the claim itself.
• The "strawman" is a fallacy in which someone misunderstands or exaggerates the counterparty's vision.
• With a "false dilemma," someone pretends that there are only two options, while in reality there are more than two options.
• There are various thinking errors where it is important to influence emotions. For example, people try to address anger, jealousy or fear.
• An incorrect conclusion is drawn with an irrelevant conclusion. This is a thinking error that does not fit with the other categories of relevant thinking errors.

Inductive thinking errors - CH.7

• Inductive errors of thought are intended to support the likelihood of their conclusions but are in fact too weak to be able to do so.
• Two thinking errors often occur with inductive generalizations: (1) generalize too quickly ("hasty generalizing") and (2) incorrect generalize ("biased generalizing"). Generalizing from exceptional cases means that a statement is made based on a rare or biased sample.
• The fallacy of "weak analogy" (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things.
• There are also thinking errors related to cause-effect: post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
• Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: here someone assumes that if one event occurs after another, this event is caused by the other.
• Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: someone assumes that the fact that two events occur at the same time causes one of these events to cause the other event.

Formal thinking errors - CH.8

• Three formal errors of thought are "confirmation of the consistent", "denial of the antecedent" and "the undivided middle".
• Ambiguous statements can produce a thinking error. This is the case, for example, with the equivocation and ambipholy thinking error.
• The fallacy of composition occurs when an attribute of parts of something is erroneously assigned to the whole. The opposite of this is the division of thought: assuming that something that is true for the whole is also true for parts of the whole.
• When contradictions are confused with contraries, the person who makes this mistake is unable to notice that two conflicting assertions can be both contradictions and contradictions.
• A common mistake is the gambler's mistake. Someone is convinced that the earlier performance of independent events will have an effect on a subsequent independent event.

Deductive reasoning I - CH.9

• There are four types of claims: A- ('all ... are ...') ,, I- ('some ... are ...'), E- ('no ... are ...'), and O- ('some ... are not ... 'claims. These claims can be described by means of Venn diagrams. The A and I claims are called confirmatory claims. The E and O claims are called negative claims.
• Claims used in daily life can be transformed into A, E, I and O claims based on specific rules of thumb.
• The square of opposition shows the relationships between different types of claims. With the help of the square of opposition we can often read the truth values ​​of the claims
• Conversion, obversion and contraposition are categorical techniques that can be used to transform claims.
• Categorical syllogisms are standardized deductive arguments. We can test their validity on the basis of Venn diagrams or on the basis of three rules. The three rules are based on affirmative and negative claims and on distribution.

Deductive reasoning II - CH.10

• There are four types of truth tables: conjunction, negation, conditional, and disjunction.
• A table gives us a "truth-functional analysis" of the original claim. It displays the truth values ​​of a general claim based on the truth values ​​of smaller parts of the claim.
• The main purpose here is to produce a claim that is similar to the original claim, but where the truth-functional structure is represented.
• We can determine whether an argument is valid based on a truth table. This can be done, for example, by deduction.
• Deduction is a useful means of proving, in particular, that an argument is valid instead of an argument being invalid.

Inductive reasoning - CH.11

• An argument based on analogy is an argument that something has a certain property, because an equal thing has the same property. This consists of two analogues: a premise analogue and a conclusion analogue. When it is proven that an argument based on analogy is wrong, there is "attacking analogy".
• You generalize from a sample when you attribute a certain trait to members of a certain population, because this is proven in a small group. The most important principles for evaluating such arguments are: (1) the more typical the sample is, the weaker the generalization, (2) the less varied the sample, the weaker the generalization, and (3) generalizations based on samples that are too small to mirror the entire population are weak.
• A causal statement describes the cause of a certain event. It is important that a certain causal pattern is not incorrectly described. Three principles apply here: the "paired unusual events principle", the "common variable principle" and the covariate principle.
• There are three types of methods that can be used to confirm a causal statement: (1) a randomized experiment, (2) prospective observational study, and (3) retrospective observational study.

Moral, legal and aesthetic reasoning - CH.12

• A value judgment is a term for a statement in which a judgment is expressed. With moral reasoning an attempt is made to establish moral value judgments.
• Two principles of moral reasoning are the consistency principle and moral principles.
• Consistency is based on the principle that the consequences of a decision or action determine the moral value. Examples are utilitarianism, egoism and altruism.
• The duty theory places value on the moral duties. We should do things or not do something not to achieve something, but simply because it is right or wrong. Moral relativism takes as its starting point that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by someone's group or culture.
• Virtue ethics does not focus on what needs to be done, but on how someone should be.