Clarifying ideas - 1
The process of reasoning often encounters a
need for clarification. Terms may be used, or
claims be made, whose meaning is unclear,
vague, imprecise or ambiguous.
 In order to evaluate an argument skilfully we
must first understand it.
 We expound some ‘right questions’ which help
clarify what writers and speakers mean –
including yourself. What is needed depends on
the audience and on the purpose of the
clarification.

Clarifying ideas - 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the problem? Is it vagueness, ambiguity, a
need for examples or what?
Who is the audience? What background knowledge
and beliefs can they be assumed to have?
Given the audience, what will provide sufficient
clarification for the present purposes?
Possible sources of clarification:
a. A dictionary definition (reporting normal usage).
b. A definition/explanation from an authority in the field
(reporting specialized usage).
c. deciding on a meaning; stipulating a meaning.
Clarifying ideas - 3
5.
Ways of clarifying terms and ideas:
a) Giving a synonymous expression or paraphrase.
b) Giving necessary and sufficient conditions (i.e. an ‘if
and only if’ definition).
c) Giving clear examples (and non-examples).
d) Drawing constrasts (what kind of thing and what
differentiates it from other things).
e) Explaining the history of an expression.
6.
How much detail is needed by this audience in
this situation?
Analysis of arguments
1.
What is/are the main conclusion/s (may be
stated or unstated; may be recommendations,
explanations, and so on; conclusion indicator
words, like ‘therefore’ may help).
2.
What are the reasons (data, evidence) and
their structure?
3.
What is the assumed (that is, implicit or taken
from granted, perhaps in the context)?
4.
Clarify the meaning (by the terms, claims or
arguments) which need it.
Evaluation of arguments
5.
Are the reasons acceptable (including explicit reasons
and unstated assumptions – this may involve evaluating
factual claims, definitions and value judgements and
judging the credibility of a source)?
6.
Does the reasoning support its conclusion(s) (is the
support strong, for example ‘beyond reasonable doubt’,
or weak?)
7.
Are there other relevant considerations/arguments
which strengthen or weaken the case? (You may already
know these or may have to construct them.)
8.
What is your overall evaluation (in the light of 1 to 7)?
Judging Credibility - 1
1.
Questions about the person/source:
a. Do they have the relevant expertise
(experience, knowledge, and formal
qualifications)?
b. Do they have the ability to observe accurately
(eyesight, hearing, proximity to event, absence
of distractions, appropriate instruments, skill in
using instruments)?
c. Does their reputation suggest they are reliable?
d. Does the source have a vested interest or bias?
Judging Credibility - 2
Questions about the circumstances/context in
which the claim is made?
3. Questions about the justification the source
offers or can offer in support of the claim:
2.
a. Did the source ‘witness X’ or was ‘told about X’ ?
b. Is it based on ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ sources?
c. Is it based on ‘direct’ or on ‘circumstantial’
evidence?
d. Is it based on direct reference to credibility
considerations?
Judging Credibility - 3
4.
Questions about the nature of the claim
which influence its credibility:
a. Is it very unlikely, given other things we
know; or is it very plausible and easy to
believe?
b. Is it a basic observation statement or an
inferred judgement?
5.
Is there corroboration from other sources?
Causal Models - 1

Agency concerns intervention in the world to
change it, to see how things might be otherwise.

Importantly, agency is about how we represent
intervention, how we think about changes in the
world. By representing it we can imagine changes
in the world without actually changing it.

This ability opens up the possibility of
imagination, fantasy, thinking about the future,
thinking about what the past might have been.
Causal Models - 2

People are selective in what they attend to. They
attend to what is is stable – to invariants –
because that’s where the crucial information is
for helping them achieve goals.

Invariants can take the form of causal relations.
These carry the information we store, that we
discuss, and that we use for performing
everyday activities that change the state of the
world.
Causal Models - 3

The ability to remember is useless without the
ability to pick and choose what is important and
to put the useful pieces together in meaningful
ways.

We can think of selective attention as solving a
problem: to find those aspects of the environment
that hold the solution, so that we can limit our
attention to them.
Causal Models - 4

Expertise inevitably involves the ability to identify
invariants. The expert picks out the properties
that explain why the system is in the current state
and that predict its state in the future.

Beyond prediction and explanation, control
requires knowing the systematic relations
between actions and their outcomes, so the right
action can be chosen at the right time.
Causal Models - 5

It is not the case that the world doesn’t change.
It is the physical generating process that
produces the world that doesn’t.

So the relations of cause and effect are a good
place to look for invariance. The mechanisms that
govern the world are the embodiment of much
that doesn’t change.

The physical, the biological, and the social worlds
all are generated by mechanisms governed by
causal principles.
Causal Models - 6

Prediction does not always require appeal to
causal mechanisms because sometimes the best
guess about the future is simply what happened
in the past.

But sometimes it does, especially when there is
no historical record to appeal to.

Then, explanation and control depend crucially
on causal understanding.
Causal explanation - issues
1.
What are the causal possibilities in this case?
2.
What evidence could you find that would count
for or against the likelihood of these
possibilities (if you could find it)?
3.
What evidence do you have already, or can
gather, that is relevant to determining what
causes what?
4.
Which possibility is rendered most likely by the
evidence? (What best explanation fits best
with everything else we know and believe?)
Causal explanation – lessons 1
1.
Many kinds of events are open to explanation
by rival causes
2.
Experts can examine the same event evidence
and come up with different causes to explain it
3.
Although many explanations can ‘fit the facts’,
some seem more plausible than others
4.
Most communicators will provide you with only
their favoured causes; the critical thinker must
generate the rival causes
Causal explanation – lessons 2
5.
Generating rival causes is a creative process;
usually such causes will not be obvious
6.
Even scientific researchers frequently fail to
acknowledge important rival causes for their
findings
7.
The certainty of a particular causal chain is
inversely related to the number of plausible
rival causes
Causal explanation – strong case

The researcher doesn’t have any personal financial
incentive in suggesting the cause

The researcher had at least one control group, that
did not get exposed to the cause

Groups that were compared, differed on very few
characteristics other than the causal factor of interest

Participants were randonmly assigned to groups

Participants were unaware of the researchers’
hypotheses

Other researchers have replicated the findings
Causal explanation – rival causes

Can I think of any other way to interpret the
evidence?

What else might have caused this act or these
findings?

If I looked at this from another point of view,
what might I see as important causes?

If this interpretation is incorrect, what other
interpretations might make sense?
Causal explanation – clues 1

Is there any evidence that the explanation has
been critically examined?

Is it likely that social, political, or psychological
forces may bias the hypothesis?

What rival causes have not been considered?

How credible is the author’s hypothesis
compared to rival causes?
Causal explanation – clues 2

Is the hypothesis thorough in accounting for
many puzzling aspects of the events in question?

How consistent is the hypothesis with all the
available valuable relevant evidence?

Is the post hoc fallacy the primary reasoning
being used to link the events?
Statistics - deceptive?

Authors often provide statistics to support their
reasoning, and the statistics appear to be hard
evidence.

However, there are many ways that statistics
can be misused.

Because problematic statistics are used
frequently, it is important to identify any
problems with them.
Statistics – assessment clues 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
Try to find out as much as you can about how
the statistics were obtained. Ask “How does
the author know?”
Be curious about the type of average being
described.
Be alert to users of statistics concluding one
thing, but proving another.
Blind yourself to the author’s statistics and
compare the needed statistical evidence with
the statistics actually provided.
Omitted information - 1
By asking questions brought up in other sections,
such as concerning ambiguity, assumptions, and
evidence, we will detect much important missing
information
 A more complete search for omitted information,
however, is so important to critical evaluation that
it deserves additional emphasis
 Next we further sensitise to the importance of
what is not said and remind that we react to an
incomplete picture of an argument when we
evaluate only the explicit parts

Omitted information - 2
Almost any information we encounter has a
purpose. Its organization was selected and
established by someone who hoped that it
would affect our thinking in some designed way
 Those trying to persuade us will almost always
try to present their position in the strongest
possible light
 It is wise to hesitate and think about what an
author may not have told us, something our
critical questioning has not yet revealed

Omitted information - 3

Omitted information is inevitable, for at least
five reasons:
1.
Time and space limitations
2.
Limited attention span
3.
Inadequacies in human knowledge
4.
Deception
5.
Existence of different perspectives
Clues for finding omitted information
Common counterarguments:
a. What reasons would someone who
disagrees offer?
b. Are there research studies that contradict
the studies presented?
c. Are there missing examples, testimonials, or
analogies that support the other side of the
argument?
2. Missing definitions: How would the arguments
differ if key terms were defined in other ways?
1.
Clues for finding omitted information
Missing value preferences or perspectives:
a. From what other set of values might one
approach this issue?
b. What kinds of arguments would be made by
someone approaching the issue from a
different set of values?
4. Origins of “facts” alluded to in the argument:
a. Where do the arguments come from?
b. Are the factual claims supported by
competent research or by reliable sources?
3.
Clues for finding omitted information
5.
6.
Details of procedures used for gathering facts:
a.
How many people completed the
questionnaire?
b.
How were the survey questions worded?
Alternative techniques for gathering or
organizing evidence:
How might the results from an interview
study differ from questionnaire results?