Critical Thinking

Our Thinking Skills' teacher asked us to make a summary of the first unit of the book ''Critical Thinking''.

1.1 Introduction

 Critical Thinking teaches the skills required to analyse and evaluate arguments. Arguments consists of a reason or reasons which support a conclusion. Evidence Arguments are designed to persuade. In order to be persuaded to accept the above arguments, we would need evidence to support it. We also need to make a judgement about the credibility of the evidence, credibility means believable.

1.2 Sources of evidence
Evidence is the information used to support the reasons and conclusion contained in an argument.
Evidence comes from somewhere. In other words, it has a source. It might be eyewitness, a newspaper report, an article in a scientific journal, a TV programme, a government press release, a photograph or a drawing. It is important to assess the credibility of a source.

1.3 Credibility criteria
Critical Thinking provides a number of techniques which can be used to asses the credibility of sources and the evidence they provide.
Neutrality

A neutral source is impartial -it does not take sides. It has no motive or reason to lie, to distort evidence, to present information which supports only one side of an issue.

Vested interest

If an individual or an organisation has a vested interest, they have something to gain from promoting and defending a particular point of view. This may lead them to lie, to select certain evidence and ignore or reject other evidence, and to distort evidence in order to benefit themselves. If a vested interest can be shown, then this may reduce the credibility of a source.

However, identifying a vested interest does not necessarily reduce the credibility of a source. Just because a vested interest exists, this does not mean that an individual or organisation will lie to distort evidence.

Bias

A vested interest can lead to bias. Bias means favouring a particular view, having a preference for something, seeing things in a particular way.

Expertise

Evidence given by an expert is often judged to be highly credible. Their training, knowledge, skills, and experience make them credible sources and give considerable credibility to the evidence they provide.

However, experts sometimes get it wrong. Standards of expertise change over the years.

Expertise is only credible if its relevant.

Reputation

It refers to a person's character or organisation's standing. In general, the higher the reputation of a source, the more credible it is seen to be.

However, a reputation for honesty and reliability doesn't necessarily means that the source provides accurate information.

Observation and eyewitness accounts

Eyewitness accounts are usually seen as more credible than second hand or hearsay evidence. An eyewitness directly, observes an event.

An account of the same event given by someone who has only an eyewitness account to go on can lose a lot in the re-telling. Details are sometimes changed, left out or even added.

However, when assessing the credibility of an eyewitness account, a number of factors need to be considered. 

Corroboration

Pieces of evidence which support each others. It increases the credibility of evidence.

Selectivity and representativeness 

What kind of evidence is selected? Does it represent all sides of an issue or only one side?

Camping groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace select only evidence which supports their views. This one-sided selection of evidence is seen to reduce their credibility as sources. It reflects their bias. This balanced selection of evidence is seen to make the BBC a more credible source.

Newspapers and news broadcasts often contain statements like; ''55% of people are against the invasion of Iraq''. 

Context

Context refers to the setting or situation in which evidence is produced. 

When assessing the credibility of evidence, it is important to look at the wider context in order to identify factors which might affect the evidence which people provide.

Using credibility criteria

Combining credibility criteria can improve the assessment of the credibility of evidence.

1.4 Credibility and truth

Credible means believable. It does not mean true. The word true means accurate and correct.

The problems, errors and misuse of forensic evidence indicate how highly convincing evidence can be wrong. Evidence does not have to be true in order to be credible.