For us humans, there is an importance in critical thinking because it aids us in making good decisions. Often we do not realise how irrational our decisions can be, and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking basically means thinking about our thinking. We make use of logic and reason to determine whether or not a claim is true, if the reasoning behind it is sound and if we can draw a correlation or connection. It is not necessarily about coming up with claim as much as evaluating the correctness of claims that have been made and try to form a proper conclusion.To achieve this, we evaluate our thinking on the basis of rationality. When we understand how critical thinking works, we can use this knowledge to be critical in multiple subjects and situations in our daily lives. It is, however, important to understand that criticising other people’s claims and ideas does not mean that we want to attack other people, only that we are trying to find the logic in them. Also, criticising other people in not always a case of critical thinking. People can criticise in the most illogical and unreasonable ways, without considering whether or not their claims are true or their reasoning sound. When we come to a conclusion at the end of a reasoning, we call that a belief. Beliefs are prepositional and can be either true or false. Beliefs can be compared to a judgement or an opinion. When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement. Claims are things that we can think critically about....

Written documents are sometimes difficult to understand. This is often because vague language is used in the text. A term is called vague when it is not clear where the line is drawn in relation to the term. An example of such a term is "bald". There are people who do not have any hair at all, but also people who are half-bald because of hair loss, but they do still have some. In these cases, it’s not clear to what extent the term "bald" applies to them. Vague concepts often also appear in the judicial system. An example is that the word "torture" is not clearly defined in the law. Sometimes politicians deliberately use vague terms just so they won’t have to answer difficult questions. The rule of thumb is that some degree of vagueness is acceptable, provided that it remains clear what the information or claim is about. Ambiguity exists when a word or sentence has more than one meaning and can therefore be interpreted in different ways. Three types of ambiguity are distinguished: (1) semantic, (2) group related, and (3) syntactic ambiguity. Semantic ambiguity occurs when a word or sentence is used that is accompanied by ambiguity. An example is: "Jessica is cold". Does this mean that she is...

Words can have a lot of persuasiveness ("rhetorical force / emotive meaning"). They can evoke images, feelings and emotions in us. Good and persuasive speakers apply a number of techniques that appeal to and convince us through rhetoric.Rhetoric is about the research into convincing writing. For example, we can write a piece in a variety of ways, and we can either make sure that Hamas members portrayed as freedom fighters or we portray them as terrorists. There is of course nothing wrong with someone trying to convince others of something. However, it is important to think critically and therefore to distinguish between arguments and rhetoric. Rhetoric should not add anything to the credibility of a statement, because rhetoric is not about substantive arguments. In rhetoric, rhetorical devices are often used. These are methods of persuasion that are sometimes used through rhetoric. Rhetoric methods can be divided into different groups of methods. The first group usually consists of a few words or short sentences that are either positive or negative. These are also called "slanters". Examples are euphemisms, dysphemism and weaselers. The second group of methods is dependent on unlawful assumptions. Examples are stereotypes, innuendo and loaded questions. The third group consists of methods that deal with humour. Group 4 consists of methods that use definitions, explanations and analogies....

Inductive errors of thought are intended to support the probability that their conclusions are true, but are in reality too weak to be able to do so. Chapter 11 will provide further information about inductive reasoning. However, this information is not necessary to be able to understand this chapter. This chapter is devoted to inductive thinking errors. Two thinking errors often occur with inductive generalizations are: (1) generalizing too quickly ("hasty generalizing") and (2) incorrect generalizing ("biased generalizing"). Below is an overview of the thinking errors that are made in inductive generalizations:Fallacy of hasty generalization: this fallacy occurs when the chance of an argument being correct is extremely overestimated because it was based on a sample that is too small. This is also called the "fallacy of Small Sample". We humans are quick to make this mistake by using a one-time personal experience for a general conclusion. Such a "small sample" can be a personal experience, or a group of friends or a neighbor, etc.Fallacy of the Lonely Fact: when a conclusion is made based on a single fact. This is an alternative to the aforementioned thinking error.Argument by Anecdote: this is a form of generalizing too quickly. Often an argument in this case is based on one person or event. The chance that an argument is correct is then overestimated.Generalizing from exceptional cases means that a statement is made based on a...

There are two techniques for creating and evaluating deductive arguments. This chapter is mainly about categorical logic. This is logic based on the relationships of inclusion and exclusion between categories in categorical claims. Categorical logic is useful in clarifying and analysing deductive arguments. When we understand how this works, we can be more critical and precise with regard to propositions and arguments and avoid ambiguity. A categorical claim says something about categories of objects. A standard-form categorical claim is a claim that arises when names or descriptions are added to categories. Here are four types of:The A-claim: "All ... are ...". Example: "All Protestants are Christians."The E-claim: "None ... are ...". Example: "No atheists are Christians."The I claim: "Some ... are ...". Example: "Some Christians are Arabic."The O-claim: "Some ... are not ...". Example: "Some Christians are not Catholic."By "some" we mean "at least one." The words that appear on the dotted lines above are called terms. The word that appears on the first dotted line in a claim is called the "subject term". The word that appears on the second dot line is called the "predicate term."The words that serve as "subject term" and "predicate term" in a sentence are collectively also called classes. The above claims can also be processed and displayed in Venn diagrams. Such a Venn diagram is a graphical representation of all possible hypothetical logical...

An argument based on analogy is an argument that says that something has a certain property, because an equal thing has the same property. For instance:Bill loves fishing.That's why his brother Sam loves fishing.The analogues in the example above are Bill and Sam. The conclusion analogue (Sam) is attributed a certain characteristic (to love to fish), because the premise analogue (Bill) loves to fish. Here are a few guidelines for evaluating arguments based on analogy.The more similarities there are between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, the stronger the argument.The fewer similarities between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, the weaker the argument.If there is more than one premise analogue, the argument becomes stronger.If there is more than one premise analogue and there are not very many opposing premise analogues (a premise analogue that does not have the particular characteristic), the stronger the argument.When it is proven that an argument based on analogy is wrong, there is "the attack of an analogy". A weak analogy (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things. You generalize from a sample when you attribute a certain trait to...

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. 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...