What is Critical Thinking? A critical thinking guide to

university study

By

Sandra Egege and Salah Kutieleh Flinders University

What is Critical Thinking?

A critical thinking guide to university study

by Sandra Egege and Salah Kutieleh

Flinders University 2013

b

c

Acknowledgements For many commencing students, the notion of critical thinking is disconcerting. There is often confusion about what the term entails and there is a general lack of explanation or explicit instruction on how to demonstrate critical thinking in academic work. As a consequence, we felt the need to produce an introductory booklet on critical thinking that would help alleviate some of the students’ concerns and, perhaps, answer some of their questions. This booklet is the result of that endeavour. Its production and design were made possible through the assistance of a Flinders Teaching and Innovation Grant received in 2007.

We would like to thank the students, staff and colleagues at Flinders who gave valuable feedback on early drafts of this booklet. Their comments were extremely useful and their suggestions have been implemented where possible. In particular, we would like to thank the 2008 Semester 1 AusAID focus group, the 2008 DVST Honours and Masters cohort, Helen Askell- Williams and Rosalind Murray-Harvey from the School of Education, and other Flinders colleagues for their invaluable contributions.

Dr Sandra Egege, Associate Professor Salah Kutieleh

©Flinders University First edition printed 2009, revised and reprinted in 2011 and 2013. Flinders University Press

Text written and compiled by Sandra Egege Layout and design by Lisa Bennett

i

Introduction ……………………………………………..…………...

Glossary of terms….…………………………………………………

Explaining Critical Thinking ………………………………………

iii

v

1 Having a critical thinking disposition 2 Developing critical thinking skills 2 Critiquing versus criticising 3 Why critical thinking is important 4 Why we make mistakes 5 Knowledge and epistemology 6 Problems with perception 7 Assessing evidence 9 Critiquing the evidence 10 Drawing an inference 11

Understanding Academic Argument………….…………………… 12 A strong argument 13 How to analyse an argument 13 Sample analysis 14 Inductive inference 16 Making a claim from the evidence 17

Critical Thinking and Logic………………………………………… 20 Common logical fallacies 21 Over-generalisation 22 Slippery slope 23 Straw man 24 Circular reasoning 25

Critical Reading……………………………………………………… 26 Critiquing the literature 27 Critical review / Article review 28 Tips for critiquing 29

Contents

ii

Critiquing Web sources 30

Writing an Argument ……………………………………………… 32 Critical language 33 Using ‘I’ in essays 34 Useful discourse markers 35 Critical thinking in academic writing 36

Appendix – Example of Critical Essay………………………….… 37

References and Additional Resources…………………………...… 42

3

The acquisition of critical thinking is often considered to be the key feature that distinguishes university academic standards from those of secondary schools. It is widely considered an essential attribute of all successful tertiary students. Critical thinking skills and related areas (ie. problem-solving skills, text analysis and argumentation skills) feature prominently in many university lists of graduate attributes.

It is important that commencing students are aware of what critical thinking entails and how it can be demonstrated as a lack of evidence of critical thinking can have an impact on their grades. This booklet has been developed for this purpose. It has been designed as a basic text to introduce commencing students to the concept of critical thinking, particularly as it is understood and practiced at Australian universities. It provides some examples of what it is to be a critical thinker, how to improve one’s critical thinking capacity, and how to demonstrate critical thinking in one’s assignments.

The intention of the booklet is to serve as a useful tool or reference text. It is not intended to be read from cover to cover but is divided into sections that can be referred to as needed. However, the first part of the booklet contains a general introductory discussion on what critical thinking is, while the latter sections are on more specific topics like Article Review or Analysing an Argument. Some of the sections are cross-referenced to other sections to help broaden understanding.

While this booklet is intended to enhance the capacity to think critically, becoming skillful at anything requires effort and hard work. Developing the skills of critical thinking is no different. It takes time, dedication and lots of practice.

Introduction

4

5

The following glossary is an alphabetical list of terms that have a particular meaning within the critical thinking context. Understanding their meaning will give you a basic introduction to the vocabulary of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking Terms

Analysis dividing a text or argument into its constituent parts in order to understand its meaning and how this is conveyed

Argument a claim that is put forward and justified by other related

claims (called premises)

Assumption a concept, idea or point of view that is assumed (implicit) or stated (explicit) as accepted fact; often acts as a basis for argument

Claim a statement in an argument; a premise; a conclusion; an

assumption

(being) the process of examining something against a set standard or Critical objective to see if it meets the requirements

Critiquing evaluating an object (text) against a standard to ascertain

strengths and weaknesses, positives and negatives; critically assessing the value of an object

Deduction process of logical inference which follows rules of validity;

deducing a specific outcome from given logically-related statements; deductive arguments are truth preserving

Epistemology study of knowledge; how we know what we know and that we

know that we know

Evaluation assessing the worth of something against set criteria

Evidence facts, data or other information used to justify or support a claim

Glossary

6

Fallacy common mistake in logic or reasoning resulting in unjustified conclusion

Generalisation a claim drawn from a specific set of examples that is (supposedly)

applicable to all similar instances of the same kind Hypothesis a possible explanation of a phenomenon or event that is put

forward, should be susceptible to testing Induction process of inference from evidence leading to generalisation or

prediction; inference to the best explanation Inference a claim or conclusion drawn from evidence, what is inferred

Justification reasons put forward to support a claim or action

Knowledge claims drawn from evidence through a process of inference (induction or deduction) that conform to reality; claims that are justified and accepted as true; statements of fact

Logic method of reasoning using accepted rules of inference; can be

formal or informal Logical words that illustrate logical relationships between ideas such as connectives ‘if…then…’; ‘or’; ‘and’; ‘not’

Position the point of view taken by the author on an issue

Premise statement that directly supports the conclusion of an argument;

more than one premise may be contained in the same sentence Reasoning logical process of working out connections between facts and

ideas leading to solution or inference; uses logical connectives like ‘if…then…’

Reviewing process of critically evaluating and judging a piece of research,

program, film; can lead to recommendations for improvement Statement a claim that can be true or false; may be more than one statement

in a sentence Synthesis the result of pulling together common themes, ideas, trends,

usually as part of literature review

1

Critical thinking is a term that is commonly used to describe a thinking process that entails the application of a broad range of different (but related) thinking skills.

We engage in Critical thinking to increase our understanding and knowledge of reality and the world we live in, both the physical world and the social or human world.

Critical thinking is about applying our thinking skills to an issue, a problem, an idea or a situation to reach an outcome of some kind. This outcome may be:

• Increased understanding • A possible solution to a problem • A new perspective on an issue • A change of belief • Confirmation of an old idea or current practice

Ultimately, critical thinking is a process of analysis and critique that is used to ensure that we come to the most reasonable conclusions about the world we live in, as well as the best solutions for what we want to achieve. It is a process of thinking that helps us make sure we have strong and reliable grounds for our beliefs and actions. The more we practice critical thinking, the better critical thinkers we become.

Critical thinking is the process of analysing, evaluating and synthesising information in order to increase our understanding and knowledge of reality. It requires the capacity to critically analyse and evaluate the claims of others as well as the capacity to justify our own claims using sound reason and logic.

Explaining

Critical Thinking

2

Having a critical thinking disposition Some people say you need certain characteristics to be a proficient critical thinker, often called dispositions. While you may not need all of the traits listed below, it does help if you have at least an enquiring mind and an interest in the truth.

• You should want to seek the truth regardless of self-interest

• You should recognise your own limitations • You should be open to alternative views and outcomes • You should have the courage and confidence to question • You should be rigorous and systematic • You should be enquiring and analytic

In other words, you should try to be as objective and as rigorous as possible.

Developing critical thinking skills

Developing critical thinking skills will make you a better and more rigorous thinker. This means the claims you make are more likely to be true because they will be based on sound reasoning.

Broadly critical thinking involves the development of the following:

• In-depth understanding • Analysis • Synthesis • Evaluation • Interpretation • Effective communication • Problem-solving abilities

Ways in which these skills can be applied to what you think, what you see and hear and what you read is by:

• Identifying and examining ideas • Analysing arguments • Recognising logical fallacies • Evaluating evidence • Asking relevant questions • Drawing appropriate inferences • Making conceptual connections

3

• Experimenting or trying out a new perspective One of the most useful critical thinking techniques is to ask questions. What is the author saying? What does this mean? Why is that the only possible outcome? What would be an alternative interpretation? What is new here? Later sections in this booklet contain a series of sample questions that should be relevant to any issue that you are examining. (see Critiquing the evidence, p.10; Drawing an inference, p.11; Sample analysis, p.14; Over-generalisation, p.22; Critical reading, p.26) Answering these questions should help you to start thinking critically about the ideas that you encounter.

Critiquing versus criticising

At University, we spend a lot of time examining what other people say and do. We closely examine their ideas, their theories, the films they make, the experiments they conduct or the programs they run. This is how we learn about our field of study. In particular, we find out about other people’s ideas and other people’s research by reading about them, by reading the books, journal articles or reports they write (or have written). This is usually the only way we know what other people are doing.

This means that a big part of critical thinking at University involves critiquing other people’s written work. We do this by analysing the text, by examining how people say they have conducted their research and assessing what they claim the research results indicate. It involves assessing how well they have conducted their research and it involves evaluating the ideas they put forward as a consequence of that research. It is also about assessing the significance of their work within and across the discipline. What knowledge have they contributed to the field?

* Critiquing is not the same as criticising *

Criticising is always negative; it is picking fault in something. Sometimes writers criticise another person (or their work) without coming up with reasons. Their statements are often not supported by evidence; ‘Her books are rubbish.’ ‘It was a really bad film.’ ‘You can’t take him seriously, he’s a war-monger.’

Critiquing is not just about finding fault, although critiquing is being critical. It involves applying rigorous academic standards to a piece of work and then judging that work against those standards. It involves a critical evaluation of that work. Sometimes the work will prove to be exceptional, at other times there may be short-comings and ways it could be improved.

4

It is important to identify any short-comings and to indicate how important or relevant those short-comings are to the overall quality of the piece of written work.

• Does it affect the quality of the research? • Does it mean the research findings are not reliable? • Does it make the claim/s less convincing? • How could it be improved?

The main purpose of critiquing is to make sure we can rely on the claims made by researchers. It helps us to be aware of what constitutes good research and good writing. It forces us to look closely at the claims other scholars make and to see if those claims are justified in the light of what we know. In the process, critiquing will improve our knowledge and the quality of our understanding in a given field

Ultimately, it is in all our interests to minimise mistakes and to

identify flaws in reasoning. Why critical thinking is important

According to William Sumner (1906), developing the skills of critical thinking is ‘our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition, and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances.’

Example of poor reasoning leading to superstition and false beliefs

In the past when crops failed, babies died or disease spread, people panicked and blamed ‘witches.’ According to the common belief of the time, ‘witches’ could do evil things with magic; they could even fly or turn themselves into animals. This false belief led to fear and the violent deaths of many innocent women.

5

There is no evidence that witches like those described above ever existed. Nevertheless, not so long ago in parts of Europe and Africa, people believed ‘witches’ could cause misfortune. It didn’t matter whether or not the person blamed really was a witch, or if witches were really capable of doing the things people said, or even if there were witches at all. Usually, the person (or people) blamed were those who were a bit different or strange in their behaviour. This kind of thinking is called superstitious and is based on ignorance and prejudice. It is not grounded in sound reasoning. People supposedly ‘saw’ causal connections when really there was only a slight correlation or coincidence (e.g. she visited my mother just before the house caught fire; the drought only started after they arrived in the village).

It is very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion or to make the wrong connections between events. We sometimes see what we want or expect to see. Critical thinking is a way of avoiding jumping to the wrong conclusions. It helps us understand how we think about the world and why we think it, to see what has formed our own (or someone else’s) beliefs and ideas. Critical thinking enables us to examine where our ideas come from and how reliable they are. We need to examine why we believe what we do

and to see if there are strong reasons to retain those beliefs.

N.B. We should not accept something just because someone says it is true, even if they give reasons. Neither should we accept something just because it seems the most obvious explanation. We need to see if the reasons are strong enough to support the idea.

Why we make mistakes

As humans, it is very hard to see, hear, read, or think about something without pre-conceptions. Prior knowledge, cultural and social beliefs, past experience and our expectations all have an impact on our capacity to view things completely objectively. This will influence the kinds of conclusions we come to. We have a tendency to accept the most obvious explanation first or the one that seems to fit with what we already believe. If we really want to know the truth about something, we need to be aware of the things that may influence (or may be influencing) our

6

understanding of, or our interpretation of, events. It may be that we are not seeing the whole picture.

At the same time, when we read someone’s writing, we need to carefully examine what they are saying and why they are saying it. We need to find out what their perspective or point-of-view is and why they believe what they do.

Knowledge and Epistemology

Life in a goldfish bowl

Symbolism was not really Bert’s thing The above illustration demonstrates how hard it is for us to move outside our own perspective. Things appear certain ways to us because we have certain beliefs about how our world is. This may be limited or even false. Like the goldfish, there are some things we just don’t understand or can’t see.

Using critical thinking skills is a way of trying to ensure that what we think is the case really is the case. This is very important at University because other people depend on the quality or accuracy of our research findings. They use this knowledge to inform their practice. So we need to make sure it is as reliable as possible. When you write assignments, you need to make sure that your conclusions are as reliable as possible or that they are the best explanation based on the available evidence.

Ummm……?

7

All good research attempts to contribute to our knowledge in a field by trying to demonstrate that ‘x’ is the case. It makes what we call a ‘knowledge claim.’ In order to count as knowledge, the statement or claim must satisfy certain criteria: • It must be true (it is a fact about the world as far as we know), and • It must be justified (there should be convincing reasons for believing

it to be true). The study of knowledge, how we justify our knowledge claims and how we judge a claim to be knowledge, is called epistemology. Most of our knowledge comes directly from experience and observation. We see or experience things and then draw conclusions based on this evidence. This is how we get to ‘know’ things. In epistemology, it is generally accepted that the majority of our knowledge claims can never be 100% certain. It is argued that we cannot rely on our perception alone to give us an accurate picture of the world because it is too easy to be mistaken. Not only that, but things are not always the way they appear (see below).

Problems with perception

Not only is our perception limited and prone to error but most of the more important knowledge claims we make are about things we can’t directly perceive, called unobservables. In science, unobservables are things like atoms, genes, gravity or radiation. In the social sciences, they are things like economies, communities, minds or emotions. How do we know that these things really exist or that the claims we make about them are true? The answer, according to epistemologists, is that we don’t. At best, all we can claim is that they are likely to be true, based on what we know

To the left is an optical illusion. Black dots appear to move over the grid when our eyes are focused elsewhere. We cannot stop ourselves from seeing this illusion, even though we know the drawing is static.

8

and understand. We identify them as entities or infer their existence from a given set of phenomena. Because of this, the most important criterion for knowledge claims is justification – the evidence, proof or reasons one has for supporting one’s claim. From the available evidence, we reason or infer that ‘x’ must be the case or that ‘x’ is likely to be the case.

The truth of this statement will depend on the strength and reliability of the evidence. The most important part of critical thinking is assessing the strength and quality of the justification given in support of any claims made. If we know what kinds of mistakes we can make, we can look out for them and help correct them.

Justification In any field of inquiry, there is an accumulated body of facts or knowledge that we currently accept as true, even though there has been a long history of scientific and human research behind the development of that body of knowledge. It is quite legitimate to use these well-accepted facts as evidence to support our arguments. This evidence provides the grounds or reasons that help justify our position.

All arguments have to start from some basic assumptions. Generally, the knowledge passed on in any academic discipline does not need further justification; it is assumed or accepted as given. It is treated as fact. For example, the following statements are considered to be true.

• penicillin is an antibiotic • Australia was populated before Captain Cook arrived • Pandas eat bamboo shoots • taxes help pay for public goods

The given (proven) facts in each discipline of study can be used as the basis of our arguments or as supporting evidence for the claims we make.

Observational evidence is another source of knowledge that doesn’t need justification as it is purely descriptive (e.g. ‘there is a chair’). The claim is not inferred or deduced because the chair is directly perceived. Nevertheless, you could have made a mistake. There are problems with certain kinds of observational evidence in terms of reliability, given the limits of our perception, so we need to examine observational reports carefully (see Critiquing the evidence, p.15). You may also need to explain what events are being observed and why.

For example: Based on the evidence available, taking vitamin C has no discernable therapeutic effect on the symptoms of a cold.

9

Assessing evidence In order to assess knowledge claims, (critiquing someone else’s work) we need to be able to recognise the kind of evidence that supports their claims. Each kind has its own criteria of acceptability. Once we have identified the justification, we can assess how well it fits its criteria. We can assess how reliable the evidence is for the kind of justification used.

In order to make knowledge claims, (writing our own assignments) we have to make sure that our claims are justified. We have to put forward strong reasons to support the claims we make. We have to make sure we draw the right kind of inference based on the evidence we have available to us.

A mistaken perception leading to a false inference

The evidence can take different forms, with each type having its own criteria of acceptability. In a given piece of research, you need to identify the kind of evidence that is being used to support a claim or action. Some examples of kinds of evidence are: • Observational (recording what is observed, said or written) • Experimental (taking measurements, recording results from tests) • Statistical (collecting and tabulating data, analysing data)

10

Critiquing the evidence If possible, all evidence should be assessed for accuracy and reliability, ie. that it is a true record of what occurred or does occur, or of what people do or think. With empirical research, you need to examine the methods used to collect the data, how the data was recorded and how the data was analysed. This should be reported somewhere in the text or article. Ask yourself questions about the reliability of the evidence. • What exactly was observed? What kinds of errors do I need to look

out for? Under what conditions were the observations made? How often? Why were these observations made? Were they expected or anomalous? Could there be a mistake? Can I rely on the data recorded? Were there any problems making the observations or collecting the data?

• How was the experiment conducted? Was there a control? How was the relevant variable isolated and tested for? What are the limitations? What are/could be the confounding factors? Is the experiment repeatable? Is it only relevant in a narrow context? Can I depend on the findings?

• Who was the target of the survey/questionnaire? What was the aim? Was the group randomly chosen or selected? Do the questions match the research aim? Are they biased towards a particular response? Do they indicate cultural, gender, class bias? Were enough responses received to be representative? How was the data analysed? Can I accept the results?

As you become more knowledgeable in your field of study, you will gain more confidence in making these kinds of assessments. You will also become more discerning. You will learn what good experimental

We use evidence to justify or support the claims we make. Evidence is used to: • Identify or explain a phenomenon • Develop an hypothesis or reach a

conclusion • Justify or prove an hypothesis • Support an opinion, belief or

action Examining the evidence

11

procedure is and what is not, or what good textual/conceptual analysis is and what is not. (see Article Review, p.28)

‘Equal opportunity’

The results of this test will only tell us which animals can climb trees. It will not be evidence of anything else.

Drawing an inference - What does the evidence prove?

Let’s say we accept the evidence presented to us. We decide that the evidence is reliable, based on the methods of data collection and what we know (ie it is the case that monkeys can climb trees better than elephants or goldfish). We now need to see what claim the evidence is being used to support. What has the author inferred from the evidence? What do they claim it shows? Does the evidence offer support for this claim? As part of our evaluation, we need to assess the following: • Is the evidence relevant to the claim? • Is the evidence enough to substantiate the claim? • Is there a better claim that could be made?

What you are doing here is questioning the inference. Has the researcher drawn the correct inference? Does the evidence really support the existence of ‘x’ or some other hypothesis? To be clear about the inferential process, you need to examine the logic of the language. You need to look closely at the argument.

12

Claim

The term ‘argument’ is used in everyday language to describe a dispute or disagreement between two or more people. However, within written academic work, the presence of an argument does not always indicate a disagreement. An academic argument can be used to:

• Support something we think has merit – a position, a point of view, a program, an object.

• Persuade someone that something would be beneficial to do (or not to do) – a particular course of action.

• Convince someone that something is true, likely to be true or probable – a fact, an outcome.

• Show someone the problems or difficulties with something – a theory, an approach, a course of action.

• Reason with someone to get them to change their mind or their practice.

An academic argument is:

A set of logically connected statements which justify a claim

= +

A basic argument consists of: A claim or conclusion Supporting premises Evidence to support the premises Reasoning or logical connectives

Example: If chocolate produces endorphins then eating it will make

you happy, because endorphins make you feel good. Analysis: Endorphins make you feel good (supporting premise)

If chocolate produces endorphins, then eating it will make you happy (logical connectives, conditional) Chocolate does produce endorphins (implicit assumption)

Understanding

Academic Argument

Academic argument Justification

13

(therefore) Eating chocolate will make you happy (conclusion)

This may or may not be a strong argument. Breaking it into its parts as above will help you to assess how strong it is, what kind of support it needs and whether it should be qualified in some way.

A Strong (cogent) Argument

An argument will be strong if it has the following:

• The premises are acceptable (they make sense) • The reasons given to support the claim are reliable • The reasons given to support the claim are relevant • The reasons provide sufficient grounds for the claim • The premises are connected semantically (meaning) • The premises are connected syntactically (in a logical way)

Ultimately, you should find the argument persuasive or convincing. You should find the claim or conclusion believable, based on the evidence presented and the way that evidence is connected to the claim.

Evidence offers support for a claim but it is not the reason we accept a claim. Evidence is not an argument. We accept (or reject) a claim because someone tells us what the relationship is between the evidence and the claim and because we think this relationship is strong (or weak). The reasoning plus evidence constitutes the argument.

NB – An argument is not good just because you agree with it.

An argument is not bad just because you disagree with it.

How to Analyse an Argument

The first stage in argument analysis is being able to recognise that there is an argument. Once we know what the argument is, we can assess and evaluate the strength of that argument by looking at the justification or evidence used to support the claim, the logical structure of the argument, and the appropriateness of the language used to indicate the logical relationship between the various statements.

Even though there is usually one main claim or conclusion put forward by the author/s, most texts contain more than one argument. Often there are supporting arguments for the main claim. There could also

14

be a subsidiary line of argument, leading to an additional point. Sometimes, there are counter-arguments as well, arguments that go against the main claim or against an alternative position. However complex the text is, though, your first task is finding or identifying the main claim, the main idea that the author is supporting or putting forward. Once this has been isolated, you can begin analysing the argument.

** This is not an argument. No claim is being put forward or defended. This passage is just descriptive.

** This is an argument because a claim is being made that the author wants you to accept, based on the evidence.

Sample analysis:

The above argument is justifying a claim. The word ‘so’ indicates a conclusion is being put forward. Sometimes you can test if something is a conclusion by putting ‘therefore’ in front of it. The claim above is (R): R: Those who use insects as a food source are acting wisely. Once the claim is identified, you then need to find the supporting statements (known as premises). Sometimes you can test if something is a reason by putting ‘because’ in front to see if this makes sense. In this argument there are two reasons or supporting statements (P and Q). P: Insects provide a concentrated source of protein Q: In many poor countries people have insufficient protein in their diets

Example Two: Insects provide a concentrated source of protein and in many poor countries people have insufficient protein in their diets. So, those who use insects as a food source are acting wisely.

Example One: Normal Antarctic icebergs consist of snow compressed into glacial ice, which flows out into the sea to form ice shelves. Hundreds of feet below the surface, Antarctic seawater freezes to the bottom of some shelves. Where the seawater is biologically rich, the ice includes dissolved remains of plankton which are green.

15

We have now started to analyse the argument. We have identified the claim and the evidence or reasons presented to support the claim. Let’s look at the logical connections between the premises. If you look at it closely, you see that you must have BOTH P and Q for the argument to work. The connective ‘so’ indicates this leads to R. Thus it has a logical format that can be represented as:

P & Q So (therefore) R.

Now you are in a position to evaluate the argument to see if it is strong or weak.

Establishing the truth of the premises

Firstly, do we agree with the premises? Is it true that insects provide a source of protein? Does this need additional support (a supporting argument)? There is a story that prisoners of war in Indonesia survived by grinding cockroaches into their food as a protein source, to provide vitamin B. What about the next statement? Is it true that poor people suffer protein deficiency? This is likely if poverty equates with a shortage of food like meat or fish. Again, there is likely to be additional evidence that could support this statement. If that additional information is available (it must be referenced) then both premises seem reasonable, so let us accept that they are true. (but see Assessing evidence, p.14)

Checking the inference

Now we need to evaluate whether or not the evidence is relevant to the conclusion and whether or not it is sufficient to support the conclusion. This is often the hardest part. Again, we need to ask questions. Do I agree with the conclusion? Why/ why not? Does the claim follow from the evidence? Is it connected? Is the evidence sufficient to justify the claim? Is this inference the most logical? Could we have drawn a different inference? Is the whole of the argument convincing?

If we accept the truth of the premises, then we need to examine the logical relations between them (the support) and the conclusion. Here we have ‘and’ and ‘so’ meaning, given both P and Q, then R can be inferred. The right connections have been drawn so it has a logical structure. The inference appears reasonable in that it could be drawn from the supporting premises. If you are poor and have limited protein sources, and insects can provide protein, then eating insects may be something to consider. It may be the only other means of getting a balanced diet. However, it would only be considered wise as long as:

16

• there are no negative side-effects from eating insects (ie poison), • they are cheap and easily accessible • they are palatable • there is no other (tastier) cheap alternative available • it doesn’t apply to all insects (some may be inedible).

The above points are called qualifications. This means we accept the claim as reasonable only if these conditions are met. It would not be wise to eat things that made you ill. As it happens, eating insects is quite common in countries where traditional protein sources are scarce and insects are plentiful (ie China, India, Thailand).

Sample of edible insects from Thailand

Inductive inference

The argument above is an example of inductive inference. This means that someone has put specific pieces of information together and inferred something that is in addition to the information in the premises. The conclusion they draw is not the only inference that could be drawn but it is one possible inference. The other important point is that the inference is broadly applicable. It is about all people in a certain situation. It is what is called a generalisation.

A generalisation claims more than we can possibly know just from the premises. However, we sometimes feel confident enough that the information in the premises is sufficient to warrant such a leap. If we are right, then we have been able to make legitimate claims about things we can’t know or see directly. We have added to our knowledge base.

17

Induction is the most common way of coming to a conclusion. It uses inductive reasoning (rather than deductive) and the form it takes is that of an inductive argument. Inductive reasoning allows us to form generalisations or make predictions about what we think is the most likely cause or the most likely outcome. The strength of the generalisation will be proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it and the strength of the relationship between that evidence and the claim.

Examples of generalisations

• Bombs cause mass destruction. • Health is more important than money. • Alcohol makes you aggressive. • Young babies need a lot of care. • Our perception is limited and prone to error.

The strength of these claims will depend on the quality of the evidence available to support them and the demonstrated link between the evidence and the claim. Some claims need more justification than others. The evidence of just one exploding bomb may be enough to prove the truth of the first statement. However, a lot of reasoning may be necessary to prove the second statement and it still may not be convincing to some people because of the counter-arguments.

Making a claim from the evidence

In an ordinary inductive argument, we often use a set of similar occurrences or events to come to a generalisation about those kinds of events or situations, or to make a prediction about the likelihood of future events. In effect, we draw an inference or make a claim based on the available evidence.

18

Ducks fly... Galahs fly…

Birds with wings can fly

Bees fly… Moths fly...

Insects with wings can fly

Example: Wings are for flying

In this example, we have taken a limited amount of evidence and inferred that all creatures with wings can fly. We didn’t check every bird or every insect, but we still think this is the right kind of conclusion to come to. We could go further and even predict that adding wings may help non- flying things to fly, leading to the 2nd inference that it is something about the design of wings, given all wings have a similar shape.

From our experience of the world and of other flying things (aeroplanes, boomerangs, sycamore seeds), we may think that the claim ‘All creatures with wings can fly’ is a very good inference. In fact, we have a lot of frequent, every day examples or evidence to confirm the claim. However, there are some exceptions. Penguins and emus are birds with wings that can’t fly. One of the problems with inductive reasoning is there can always be exceptions. The above conclusion is true most of the time and may still tell us something about the function of wings. As it stands, though, it needs qualifying. We could change the conclusion to acknowledge the constraints.

All creatures with wings can fly

Wings are for flying

19

Except for flightless birds, all creatures with wings can fly.

(or) All creatures with wings are likely to fly.

Therefore, wings are designed for flying. If we think we have a reliable generalisation, we could use it as the starting premise in a deductive argument. A deductive argument is almost the opposite of an inductive argument. We start with a general claim then deduce something about a specific instance. This is why it is sometimes represented by an inverted triangle: you start with a broad generalisation and then become more specific.

This is called a sound deductive argument. Any argument that has a valid form and true premises will have a true conclusion. We can sometimes check whether someone’s argument is true by seeing if it is sound or not. With deductive arguments, we check for validity and soundness; with inductive arguments we check for strength.

Unfortunately, our claims or conclusions are not always based on such sound reasoning or such abundant evidence. Another problem we face in coming to good robust conclusions is that our reasoning could be flawed.

All acids turn litmus paper red

This is an acid

Therefore, it will turn litmus paper red

20

We may look at each premise in this argument and decide that each statement is true. The concluding statement may, in fact, actually be true.

Like the penguin, it is easy to make mistakes with our thinking. Our thinking processes are fallible and we often commit what are called logical fallacies. We need to be aware of the kinds of thinking mistakes we can make so that we can try to correct them (as much as we can) or point them out when others make them.

We can recognise the mistake in the above cartoon because we know that penguins are not TV shows. A correct (valid deductive) form of the above argument is on the left; the fallacious form is on the right:

All As are Bs not All As are B Some As are C Some Cs are B .. Some Bs are C .. Some As are Cs

Sometimes, though, the mistake is not so easy to see, as in the example below.

The English like cricket

Some terrorists like cricket

Therefore, some English are terrorists

Critical Thinking and Logic

21

However, it is only true coincidentally. It is not true because of the logic of the argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. This argument is invalid. There is a flaw in the reasoning that is the same as the penguin’s. It is like saying: apples are fruit; oranges are fruit; therefore apples are oranges. The fact that two things share one common property does not make them the same.

Common Logical Fallacies

Below is a list of common fallacies. They all represent attempts to persuade someone to think or do something. Some are more common in direct speech or in advertising, in political speeches or in newspaper articles where we don’t have to be so rigorous. At university, we should avoid using fallacies, especially deliberately.

• Appeal to authority - questionable authority, do not accept

something as true just because an authority figure said it • Appeal to common or popular belief – just because it is a popular

belief, doesn’t make it true • Appeal to common practice (tradition) – just because it is common

practice, doesn’t make it right • Appeal to indirect consequences - slippery slope (see below) • Appeal to loyalty - peer pressure, nationalism, patriotism • Appeal to prejudice – using stereotypes like ‘we all know

politicians lie…,’ ‘a woman wouldn’t do that…’ • Appeal to vanity - ego, flattery; ‘you should know better…’, ‘as an

intelligent person…’ • Hasty or over-generalisation - poor inductive argument (see

below) • Ad hominem attacks - attack the person, rather than the ideas • Post-hoc reasoning - attribute false causal relationship after the

event • Burden of proof - avoid answering question • Loaded question - pre-empting answer; • Straw man - superficial characterisation (see below) • Circular reasoning - begging the question (see below) • False dilemma - claiming only two options are possible.

While there are many logical fallacies we can make, the most common fallacies in academic writing are the following four.

22

1. Hasty or over-generalisation One of the most common mistakes in reasoning is to jump to conclusions too soon or to come to a conclusion based on limited evidence. (see also Inductive inference, p.18)

Example – Apples are very poor quality this year; every apple I have bought recently has been bad.

This is an example of a hasty generalisation. Though the claim may be true, it is based on very limited evidence of questionable reliability. The strength of this generalisation will depend on answers to the following questions:

• How many apples did you actually buy? Did you buy 3 or 40? What is a fair number to pass judgement? Were they all bad? Did you have any good ones?

• Did you buy them all from the same place? Did you buy them from similar or different retail outlets?

• Are you buying only one kind of apple? Is this apple in season? • Are you buying old fruit, at the end of the day? • Have others found the same problem? Is there a pattern that we can

use to predict future bad apples or is it just random, chance, coincidence with no discernible pattern?

• What might the other indicators of poor quality be? Are they present?

Part of how we assess this argument is based on our world life experience. We know there is always a likelihood that you can buy a bad apple, just based on chance. This is irrespective of whether or not you have bought a bad apple in the past. It could also happen whether the quality of fruit is good or poor. Even if the next apple you bought was bad, it wouldn’t make your reasoning any better or your argument stronger. It is still a hasty generalisation. You may also be correct and the quality of apples is poor this year. It still doesn’t make the reasoning good. You do not have enough evidence (yet) to draw that kind of general conclusion.

Another fallacious inference that could be drawn from the evidence is:

The quality of fruit and veg has really dropped. This is called an over generalisation because it claims far more than the evidence warrants.

23

• What have a few bad apples got to do with the quality of (all) vegetables?

• What have a few bad apples got to do with the quality of all other fruits?

• Dropped when, where, how much? • What are you comparing the standard to?

Such statements are based, at best, on one or two examples only. Even if the examples are true, and there are lots of them, the statement still claims too much. It says this is the case for ALL members of that class. No exceptions. It is true that some properties are shared by all members of certain groups which qualify them as members of that group – all bikies ride bikes; all lawyers have a law degree. But we need to be careful about what characteristics are defining and what are not.

2. Appeal to indirect consequences (slippery slope)

This type of reasoning is common in public debates about legalising an act (or a substance) that is currently illegal. Examples in Australia are about legalising marijuana, voluntary euthanasia or allowing same-sex marriage. In some places debates are about dress codes and decency. Mostly, slippery slope arguments arise in debates about changing current practice or tradition. The argument involves an appeal to the possible negative consequences of changing the status quo. Appeals to indirect consequences usually try to get you to take disastrous consequences into account, without regard for their likelihood. The "slippery slope" of non- automatic consequences is clear and with each step down the slope, the consequences are more extreme.

Example: Legalizing marijuana will mean increased availability, leading to increased drug use by teenagers, increased use of heavy drugs like heroin, more addiction, more drug-related crime, more deaths of young people, the destruction of our

Whereas a hasty generalisation may turn out to be true, an over- generalisation is always false because it takes limited evidence and applies it to a whole class of objects. Stereotyping is a classic example of this kind of poor reasoning.

• Bikies are criminals who sell drugs. • Lawyers can’t be trusted. • Teenagers have no respect. • Men are better drivers than women.

24

public school system, and eventually the collapse of our society. So how can you even consider its legalization?

The fallacy is that the causal connections between each of the steps in the argument become more tenuous and the consequences more dire. Each step down a slippery slope is possible but far from automatic and may be, in fact, highly improbable. The conclusion itself is based on the most indirect, and therefore least likely, of these possibilities. More than anything, this type of argument appeals to our emotions, paranoia or fears.

In making decisions, we should take consequences into account, but only in proportion to their likelihood. The point is that we should decide the question on its own merits, and not on the fear of a remote (and unlikely) result.

3. Straw man (superficial characterisation)

The purpose of this technique, which is called "straw man" (like a scarecrow) relies on the creation of a false image of someone else's statements, ideas, or beliefs. A "straw man" image is rarely based on actions, but instead on comments or beliefs. Generally, a straw man argument oversimplifies someone’s position and then proceeds to create a false-image fallacy. It is then very easy to criticise. An example of this kind of fallacy is when someone wants to ridicule a position, like astrology or the hard sciences. They will represent the position simplistically and in its worst light, then proceed to criticise it, based on that analysis. They create a false image then show how flawed that image is. It is much better

25

to represent an opponent’s position as strongly as you possibly can, then knock it down. This makes your case much stronger.

4. Circular reasoning (begging the question)

There is a difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy but, in the case of the fallacy of circular reasoning, the difference is not always obvious. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions. The difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in the single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from its premises. In both examples, the conclusion is assumed in the premises. But for circular reasoning, the conclusion can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It's like saying, "A is B, therefore A is B." In a deductive argument it is more like “A then B, A therefore B.”

Example: If Real Madrid are the best team, then they should have the

best team of players. They are the best team. Therefore, they have the best team of players. (valid deductive argument)

Example: Real Madrid is the best football team because it has the best

team of players. (circular reasoning – they are the best team because they are the best team)

26

Critical reading (close reading) involves a close and careful reading of a text. It involves working out what the underlying meaning of the text is and how that meaning is conveyed.

There are different kinds of texts that we read, depending on the discipline we are studying. These may be anything from reports to research articles, from history books to experimental procedures, or from novels to reviews.

Each text is written for a purpose and for a particular audience. When you are reading, you have to work out what and who this is. Most importantly, you have to work out what is being said, why it is being said and how it is being said. This will take you below the surface of the text to its actual construction (a painting, a photograph or a film are other kinds of text that can be analysed like this).

Ask yourself:

• What is the topic? • Who is writing? Who is the audience? • What is the purpose of the text? (information, entertainment…) • What kind of language does the author use? (informal, technical…) • Where is the author’s voice? What is the point/s the author is

making? • Is the author trying to persuade you of something? Why? • How successful is it? • Why do you think it was successful/partly successful/not

successful?

In academic texts, the author is usually trying to persuade you to accept a particular point of view or position or idea. This means that they will be putting forward a reasoned argument. An academic argument is not a disagreement; it is just a claim that is justified by other statements. This means that critical reading will generally involve extensive argument analysis. (see Argument analysis, p.18)

Critical Reading

27

Critiquing the Literature Academic writing (writing an essay, a report, journal, case study, etc) is about conducting research on a specific area or topic. It has two main components: • a review of the literature which requires an in-depth analysis and evaluation of the relevant research, both past and present; and • the re-presentation of this material (or a re-evaluation of existing material) to support a specific claim or conclusion which is your point of view on the topic.

The literature represents what other people have to say about your topic of research. It not only incorporates the body of accepted knowledge and the current state of research in the field but it represents the current debates, it identifies the issues and existing problems, and it points to new directions. It represents what other researchers believe to be the case, based on their own research. Never just describe the literature (such as Jones said this, Smith claimed that). Always evaluate it in some way. Assess the literature in terms of its contribution to the field of knowledge in a given area. Always say why you have mentioned a particular text or piece of research. A literature review is a classic example of where you need to critique a body of work on the same topic. To write a good literature review, you need to:

• Sort and synthesise

• Pick out main themes • Identify current or common issues • Identify trends • Identify key studies or key theorists

• Discuss the significance of their contribution

• What role do they play in the field? • Did they set new directions or ideas? • Did they introduce new methods or approaches? • Did they change the direction of research? • Is their work of historic interest, typical, seminal, indicative?

• Analyse

• Show clearly state of research at this time • Identify and explain current debates • Identify issues arising from literature • Identify problems, gaps in research • Illustrate by doing a close reading of a text

28

• Evaluate • Assess the research already conducted • How is it dealing with the issues or problems? • What needs to be addressed? • What are the obstacles, limitations or constraints? • How thorough is the work so far? • What has been achieved to date? • Are there signs of change, anomalies, new directions?

• Your position in relation to literature

• Relevance to own research, ideas • What do you think? • Why have you chosen these texts? • How do they support your ideas?

Critical review/Article review

An article review follows the same process of critical appraisal as a literature review but generally focuses on a single piece of literature or research (although some may ask for more than one). A review will always contain:

• A good summary of what the issue under discussion is, the main

claim and why the author/s believe this to be the case • A critical evaluation of their argument

An article review is like a good film or book review. You don’t know if the film is worth seeing or the book is worth reading so you read the review to find out. The review will tell you what kind of book/film it is (cowboy, love story) and what it is about. It will also critically evaluate the book/film against a set of criteria of what makes a good film or what constitutes a good story. It will tell you whether it was any good or not and will give you reasons to support that judgement.

In writing an article review, you are assessing that article against a set of criteria that determines whether something is a good academic piece of work or not. You will be judging the article in terms of its clarity, the way it is organised, the quality of the research, the persuasiveness of its claims and its overall significance to the particular field or topic. You will be making a judgement about its worth and giving reasons to justify your claims, often by referring to specific aspects of the text itself.

29

Remember, there are generally two types of article, what is called empirical and what is called conceptual. An empirical article will be written about research that was conducted where data was collected or created by the researchers. This is primary research. In a conceptual article, the authors either discuss ideas or theories alone, or use someone else’s data to discuss the ideas or theories. This is called secondary research. The focus is on the concepts, not the interpretation of data. If an article is conceptual you will analyse it in a different way to an empirical article. In an empirical article, the author/s must describe how they collected the data, why they collected it in the way they did, and how they analysed it. As a consequence, it must satisfy a different set of criteria.

Tips for Critiquing the Literature

(The easiest way to think critically about what you read is to ask questions) • What is the context of the article? • What is the issue or problem being addressed? • What is the author claiming? • What is the argument? • How is it justified? • What evidence is presented? • Does the evidence support the claim/s? • Is the evidence convincing? • What are the limitations of the evidence? • Does the conclusion follow from the premises? • Is the argument logical? • Could there be another conclusion or interpretation? • Do you know other work which supports these findings? • Do you know other work which contradicts these findings? • What assumptions has the author made? Are they valid? • Do you agree with the author? Why? Why not?

Critiquing Web sources

A new kind of literature that needs careful critiquing is web-based information. There are so many documents available online that it is difficult to know which ones to read. It is even harder to assess them for quality, to know which ones are worth reading. The sheer quantity is daunting. More importantly, though, the academic quality that we expect is not always present. You need a few techniques to make sure you are

30

accessing the best quality documents you can. The following section gives you a few tips for improving the quality of what you are accessing.

Authorship

Anyone can set up a web- page and write about anything they like. No-one can stop them. This doesn’t make them an expert or someone worth reading. Unlike academic papers, no-one has assessed their work and agreed with the content. No-one has said the content is reliable or that the ideas are objective. So the first thing you should do is check out the

credentials of the author. For example, if you want balanced information on the holocaust, you would not use a neo-Nazi site. If you want reliable information about Viagra, you don’t just go to the drug company’s website.

Again, ask questions:

• Who is the author? • What are their qualifications in this field? • What are their affiliations? • Is this their own homepage? • Is the article a part of a larger organisation’s website? • Have they set up links to official websites on related matters? • Is the article referenced? • Do the references exist? Are they reliable sources of this

information? • What is the tone or language being used? Is it emotional, friendly,

angry, colloquial, technical, academic?

If you want reliable information or a reliable point of view, it is best to avoid articles that are from someone’s homepage. Even if the article is written by a well-known expert in the field, it is best not to use it. They would have (or will) published the paper, if they thought it could satisfy

31

the scrutiny of their academic peers. This one may be an early draft or just an opinion piece. Never use articles that are not referenced. If referenced, make sure the sources are academic or professional or from an official source.

Credibility It is best to focus on articles or reports that come from reliable sources that have been peer refereed. Focus on sites such as:

• Academic databases • On-line journals and refereed publications • Government websites and reports • Official NGO websites and reports

Wikipedia is an evolving resource which is given mixed responses. Some people think it is not a reliable source for essay use. However, it is self- regulating and most contributors are experts in their field so it is useful for accessing detailed information on specific topics. Some entries are very thorough and provide a good source for understanding terminology, definitions, or the history or development of an issue or idea. It will often have cross-links that can provide additional information. Use it for your own understanding. Do not refer to Wikipedia in your assignments.

32

How to use Argument Structure when writing your essay:

Ask yourself:

• What is my claim or conclusion? (What is the point/s you want to make?) No argument unless there is a conclusion.

• Why do I think this? What are the reasons that support my conclusion?

• Are they clearly stated? • Do they follow a logical sequence? • Have I cited enough evidence to support my claim? • What assumptions am I making? Are they well-accepted? Do

they need to be explicitly stated? • What are the conditions under which my conclusion might not

be true? • Does my answer need to be qualified? • What are the counter-arguments? Have I addressed them? • Why should s/o not believe my claim or conclusion? • What is missing? Is another conclusion possible, given the

reasons? • What else might be important to acknowledge? • What are the implications of my position for current

understanding of the issue or for future research?

If you follow these guidelines, you will not only write a much stronger and more convincing argument but you may even change your position.

Writing an Argument

33

Critical language Often lecturers say it is hard to know what the student thinks about the literature. How can we indicate this clearly? What can we do to show that we are offering a critique of the literature rather than just a description of it? How do we show we agree or disagree? How do we show that we think something is good or interesting?

We show our position in relation to a piece of work by the sort of language we use when we discuss it. What we want to say will be illustrated by the sorts of things we highlight, emphasise or point out. This will be driven by the question/s we are asked and how we choose to answer them.

• What position will you be supporting or arguing for? • Who do you agree with? • What research did you think was useful? • What articles/information influenced your thinking? • What research did you find significant? • What research or ideas didn’t you agree with? • What convinced you and why?

Your writing should demonstrate clearly what your attitude is by the words you use to talk about the literature. For instance, indicate that you found an article interesting or an idea significant or an approach innovative.

Examples: Most of the literature highlights the need for reform. As Jones shows, there is an alternative. A significant study by Smith…… One important study on…….demonstrates that… However, there is evidence that… While there is convincing evidence that…, more recent studies show a different trend. An interesting case in China…. Interesting research has been conducted by…. There are serious implications that can be drawn from…. In relation to X, this is very important/ significant… because…. It is still not completely clear that….

It is clear that… As shown, current research…. As can be seen, many theorists hold that…. These findings indicate that….

34

This finding is supported by... This seems to imply that... They extend the idea of…. Evidence of this can be seen in the work by….

Using the ‘I’ in essays

The introduction is usually the only place where you can use “I” (unless you are writing a self-reflective paper which asks for your personal views or reactions or a philosophy essay). Even then, some lecturers prefer you not to use it at all. Check with your lecturer to see what form they prefer you to use in your assignments as it may vary across topics.

Avoid using expressions like, ‘in my opinion’ or ‘I think.’ Instead of saying ‘In my opinion/I think, this is a viable option,’ just say ‘This is a viable option,’ giving your reasons.

The following gives examples of how to use “I” appropriately and how to avoid using it altogether.

The use of “I”

Avoiding the ‘I’

In this paper, I discuss/ will discuss… I argue/ will argue that… I will show.... I will present… I will put forward the claim that... I refer to the work of/ theory by... First, I will demonstrate that…

Changing the subject • This paper discusses the… • This essay puts forward the claim that... • This paper argues that... • The findings indicated… • The idea was to... • The intention of the research was to...

Using the passive voice

• It will be argued that… • Four articles will be analysed… • Eight nurses were interviewed… • It was found that…

35

• It will be demonstrated that… Useful discourse markers

There is a range of different words you can use that indicate the logical connections between your ideas, your attitude to the research you have included and the relationship between the evidence and what you are claiming. These are called logical connectives (and, but, or, either/or, if...then, therefore) and discourse markers. Below are some useful examples.

Citing evidence

According to Smith, ..... Smith claims that..... Smith states...... As Smith claims/shows/illustrates, ......

This is supported by...... Research findings indicate/ show that...... This indicates that...... There is evidence to show that.....

Showing agreement

Consequently, ... At the same time, ... As indicated, ... As Smith indicates,… Further to.... , In support,…. As a consequence, … Moreover,…. Furthermore,...

Showing disagreement

In contrast,… But... On the contrary,… On the other hand,… However,… Contrary to....

36

Showing disjunction (qualifying) Despite this, ..... Although.... In spite of this,... While..... Nevertheless,... Whereas...... Regardless of...., Yet... Even if, even though..... By comparison, ...

Evidence of Critical Thinking in Academic Writing

No Critical Thinking Good Critical Thinking

Task Task

To construct knowledge; To come to well-founded conclusion based on objective comparison of alternatives, obtained from the relevant literature.

Outcomes Outcomes

Consciously prioritises issues & information. Articulates well founded support for choosing one solution over another. Objectively viable options.

considers other

Conclusion based on qualitative evaluation of expert's positions. Acknowledges limitations and makes long-term forecasts.

Repeats or paraphrases information from texts, lecture notes, websites. Expects a single, 'correct' answer to be provided by the experts. Fails to perceive uncertainties and ambiguities Cannot evaluate evidence. Accepts claims as fact. Uses illogical arguments.

To find the single, 'correct' answer; To list, describe or explain something.

37

Appendix: An example of a critical essay

An argument against linguistic relativism There has been an ongoing debate about the connection between language and thought and to what extent one is dependent on the other. Some philosophers (Dennett 1991) go so far as to claim that language not only enables thinking but it actually creates a conscious mind. In addition, he claims that the type of language one has access to will create a specific type of mind with specific cognitive capacities. In this paper, I query the strength of this claim. I argue that while there might be some evidence for linguistic determinism, the evidence for linguistic relativism is much weaker (thesis statement).There is little evidence at this stage to suggest that a Mandarin speaker, for example, will have a different range of cognitive capacities to, say, a native French speaker.

As early as 1930, Mead (1932) argued that language and social interaction were critical for the development of the mind, consciousness and the self. Dennett, in his book Consciousness Explained (1991) makes a similar claim. He puts forward the proposition that the mind, consciousness and the self are, in fact, socially constructed through the transformation of the cognitive architecture (of the brain) by the acquisition of language. Language is the bearer of the socio-cultural units that transform the brain into a mind. Social constructivists like Burr claim that language is ‘a [necessary] precondition for thought,’ (2003:8) and that there can be no thought without language. This means that if thinking is representative of having a mind, then there can be no mind without language. It also means that acquiring a particular language would construct a particular mind. One’s particular cultural language would constrain what and how that mind could think. (context, outlining the issue)

This brief summary sets out the rationale for both linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism. The implication of both positions is that anyone without a language, such as deaf mutes or those with a disability, would have no mind. It also means that different language users will have different minds from each other, strengthening the claim that people from different cultures think differently and, hence, see the world differently. (implications of thesis) In this paper, I argue that linguistic relativism is unlikely to be true in any strong sense. I first present the case for the thesis and then present counter evidence to demonstrate the weaknesses in the argument. I conclude that there is little evidence to support culturally-relativistic cognitive differences based on one’s native language. (my thesis statement)

38

There is some evidence that lacking a language does have an impact on one's capacity to think. According to Sacks (1991), the mind of a deaf mute is stunted without access to a language. He supports this claim by using the words of the pre-lingual deaf who state that prior to language acquisition they were intellectually disabled or retarded. According to Dennett, ‘…when a deaf-mute acquires language…a full-fledged human mind is born, clearly different in discoverable ways from the mind of a hearing person, but capable of all the reflective intricacy and generative power’ Dennett 1991: 448). Further evidence of the link between language and thought is provided by cases such as the wolf boy of Aveyron (found surviving in the woods) and thirteen year old Jeanie Doe (found locked in a room), neither of whom had exposure to language prior to their discovery (Pinker 1994; Dennett 1991). Their subsequent language acquisition was only partial and their cognitive capacities remained extremely poor. (putting the case in defence of language dependent thinking/ linguistic determinism – first issue)

It would seem at face value that this kind of evidence does support a strong link between language and mind, or at least language and thought. It may be the case that an extremely limited grasp of language would restrict one’s cognitive capacity, given there are some things that would be difficult to think about without words to express them, such as distal stimuli, universal statements and abstract concepts. (examining the feasibility of the case, implications)

However, the extent to which language deficiency stunts cognitive capacities is hard to determine. The kinds of language deficiencies mentioned above tend to occur with other extreme forms of deprivation, including emotional and social isolation. The wolf boy of Aveyron had no human contact before he was found and Jeanie Doe was locked in a room on her own from a very early age, with only sporadic contact at meal times. Some researchers claim that both children may have been born with some form of intellectual disability which led to their abandonment in the first place. In the case of the deaf, Sacks (1991: 45n) also claims that social isolation and deprivation play a critical role in inhibiting cognitive learning in some deaf children. This makes it difficult to know exactly how big the role of language is in determining (and limiting) cognitive capacities. (critiquing the evidence and casting doubt on the claim; counter argument)

Even if we concede that language does influence thought to a greater or lesser extent, this does not necessarily lead to linguistic determinism or linguistic relativism. However, if one believes that language constructs

39

one’s thinking by virtue of its content, this leads inevitably to a form of linguistic cultural relativism. If language allows us to think about our world in a way that is different to a being without a language, and if language is a social construct, then this means that the kinds of things one can think about and express will be constrained by the lexicon of the particular language. Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations (1953) famously argued that we learn how to use language in the right ‘language game’. Appropriate language use is socially contextual where meaning varies depending on context. Consequently, the mind of each language speaker will be shaped by the socio-cultural concepts represented in its particular language. Dennett makes the stronger claim that an English- speaking mind will be structured differently and have different cognitive abilities from, say, a Japanese or Swahili-speaking mind (1991: 204). (defending the second claim)

One of the best known expressions of the cultural specificity of linguistic concepts is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Whorf 1950). Whorf, in his well- known example of the Hopi Indians’ understanding of time, claimed that the lack of recognisable tenses for future and past events in the Hopi language indicated such a different conceptual schema to our own that it could be argued the Hopi Indians actually occupied a different world. Whorf also adverted to the now infamous example of the Inuits’ multiple terms for snow. Similar observations have been made about supposedly non-translatable linguistic concepts in other languages such as the French ‘sang froid’, the German ‘Schadenfreude’, the Danish ‘hygge’ and the Italian ‘culacino’ (Bryson1990:4). Hanna Pitkin mentions the differences in colour descriptions between some cultures, implying that language can actually influence our perception of colour (1972: chap.1). (evidence supporting the second claim) If one accepts this position, we cannot see the world independently of language because language creates our cognitive capacities, our beliefs and our values. An inevitable conclusion of this position, given the supposed power of language to construct our minds, is that words create both the ‘we’ and the world we live in.

However, this is not necessarily the case. Whorf’s claims have long been shown to be wrong. Doubt has been cast on the validity of his research, as well as the implications he draws from the evidence. Martin, in her paper ‘Eskimo Words for Snow’ (1998) reveals the lack of scholarly research, the misrepresentation of evidence and the exaggerated claims made about the Inuits in Whorf’s work. Pinker is even more damning about the Hopi Indian evidence (1994: chap. 2). He convincingly shows how Whorf used fallacious logic to link different expressions for things, to differences in thinking about things. Pinker also points out that

40

different colour terms in different languages just represent a spectrum from broad to specific discrimination. They do not reflect different perceptions of the world, merely which bits of the spectrum we choose to identify as distinct enough to warrant a name. (critiquing the evidence; counter argument)

Similar criticism has been directed at the supposed untranslatability of different language concepts. In reality, people learn other languages and operate successfully within different cultures all the time. Individual words may not always have accurate synonyms but this doesn’t preclude a reasonable grasp of the meaning. Whorf’s own translations of Hopi Indian argue against the incommensurability of their concepts. There is also no indication that one jumps from one conceptual reality to another merely by speaking a language other than one’s native tongue. Mastering a language assumes that we can work out what the terms in one language refer to and relate that to related terms in our own language (Couvalis, 1989). At most, one could claim that we occupy the same world but that it is merely described differently in different languages. Pinker also argues that multi-lingual capacities and the translatability of languages show that, on the whole, languages reflect a common perceptual schema and a shared conceptual framework (1994).

There is some limited evidence that a lack of certain kinds of words can have an impact on one’s reasoning skills. Mobo Gao (2000) conducted research on what he calls PRC Chinese in Australia, to ascertain the effects of native culture and language on intercultural communication. While not overtly advocating differences in thinking, he does claim that certain ways of thinking are constrained by one's language. A word like 'apparently,' when used in a logical academic context, has no ready Chinese translation but the term has certain logical implications which are hard to grasp if the word is not fully understood. A similar point was raised by Bloom in 1979 (585-586). He claimed Chinese students with little exposure to Western languages could not understand counterfactuals because their language did not have that kind of logical construction. This meant students had difficulty responding appropriately to abstract conditional statements. This seems to imply that the logic of thinking could be affected by the availability of certain relational words. (counter evidence/counter-counter argument)

However, there has been little confirmation of identifiable differences in abilities between different language users, other than slight variations in memory, even with consistent testing. While there is some anecdotal evidence that native Chinese speakers can remember longer sequences of numbers due to the way their mathematical language is structured, it

41

should be noted that isolated Pinjintjara children, who only have access to the numbers 1, 2 and ‘many’ in their native language, have no more difficulty learning basic maths than other children their age, once they have access to it.1 We should also bear in mind that mere exposure to information alone will not guarantee the acquisition of certain skills or abilities. They are not uniformly acquired across cultures or social groups despite the availability of the relevant ideas.

There is, in fact, little evidence to support the idea that people in different cultures, by virtue of having different languages, actually have different enough cognitive capacities to warrant claims of stereo-typical cultural differences. There is also no evidence to show that the culturally-specific terms used to describe the world, contained in a language’s lexicon, are incommensurable with each other. While there may be some conceptual differences between cultures, it is too strong to claim that we occupy different worlds or think in radically different ways. While there is evidence that having a language, any language, does increase the scope of one’s thinking, it has not yet been demonstrated that thinking per se is language dependant. Similar conclusions can be drawn in relation to linguistic relativism. Differences do exist between cultures but there is little support for the claim these are cognitive and determined by one’s native language.

Essay Reference List Bloom, A.H. 1979. The Impact of Chinese Linguistic Structure on Cognitive Style, In Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 585-586.

Bryson B. 1990. Mother Tongue, Penguin Books, London.

Burr, V. 2003. Introduction to Social Constructionism, Routledge, London

Couvalis, G. 1989. Feyerabend’s Critique of Foundationalism, Avebury, England.

Dennett, D. 1991. Consciousness Explained, Little, Brown, Boston.

Gao Mobo 2000. Influence of Native Culture and Language on Intercultural Communication: the Case of PRC Student Immigrants in Australia in Journal of Intercultural Communication, No 4, URL: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/.

Martin, L. 1998. ‘Eskimo Words for Snow’: a case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropological example, in D. Oaks Linguistics at Work, Harcourt-Brace.

Mead, M. 1932. An Investigation of the Thought of Primitive Children, with Special Reference to Animism, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland , Vol. 62, pp. 173-190.

Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct, Penguin Books, London.

Pitkin, H. 1972. Wittgenstein and Justice, University of California Press, USA.

1 This evidence is from personal teaching fieldwork in Oodnadatta with Pinjintjara children, 1972.

42

Sacks, O. 1991. Seeing Voices, Picador, London.

Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations, G. E. Anscombe (trans.), Macmillan, New York.

Whorf B. L. 1950. An American Indian Model of the Universe in International Journal of American Linguistics, vol 16, no. 2, pp. 67-72

References and Additional Resources

Critical Thinking Links 2003 http://www.nvcc.edu/home/jtrabandt/discussion/criticalthinking/ctlinks.html

Facione, P. 1998, Critical Thinking: What it is and why it counts, California Academic Press

Facione, PA, Sanchez CA, Facione NC and Gainen J. 1995, ‘The disposition toward critical thinking’ in Journal of General Education, vol.44, no 1, 1-25.

Govier, T. 2005, A Practical Study of Argument, Thomson/Wadsworth, Southbank, Victoria.

Halpern, D.H. 1997, Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Lynch and Woolcott 2001, Steps for Better Thinking, Virginia Assessment Group Conference, Virginia

Naquin, D. 2002, Critical Thinking Across Disciplines http://www.nvcc.vccs.edu/home/nvnaqud/critical_thinking/

Nickerson, R.S. 1986, Reflections on Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

QUESTION/PROBLEM: Critical Thinking Skills - Definitions and Assessment last updated September 8, 1997, http://ericae.net/faqs/crit_tnk.htm

Sievers, Ken 2001, 'How do you know that...?', Critical Reasoning Handbook, Philosophy Department, Flinders University.