TANGAZA COLLEGE – CUEA

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING
COURSE OUTLINE

COURSE REQUIREMENTS
Lecture attendance is compulsory
CAT 30 %
Exam 70 %
Total 100 %

COURSE DESCRIPTION
Critical thinking is applied logic that is it employs
principles, skills and patterns of correct reasoning. The
course deals with nature of critical thinking, its value in
pursuit of truth, skills and attitude of a critical thinker,
limitations or impediments to critical thinking, nature and
types of fallacies. Relevance of critical thinking to social
communication
COURSE OUTLINE
1. Introduction
2. Definition of logic
3. Acts of mind
 -simple apprehension
 -judgment
 -Inference
4. Types of arguments
 5. Nature of critical thinking
6. Principles of critical thinking
7. Skills of critical thinking
8. Impediments to critical thinking
9. Fallacies
 -formal
 -informal
10. Relevance of critical thinking and in youth
Ministry
11. -social communication, Youth Ministry
12. -critical thinking in social communication and
Youth Ministry
13. Conclusion & summary

References
Moore, B. N & Parker R. (2000) Critical Thinking.6th ed.
N.Y.:McGraw-Hill
Rudinoew, J. & Barry V. C (2008) Invitation to Critical
Thinking
Wambari,K. (ed) (1992) Readings in Introduction to
Critical Thinking.Kijabe: A.I.C Kijabe.
Namwambah, T. N. (2003) Essentials of Critical and
Creative Thinking.Nairobi:Didaxis Resources
____________ (2005) A Study Guide to Critical &
creative Thinking. Nairobi: Diodaxis Resources.
Boulden, G.P. (2002) Thinking Creatively. London:
Dorling Kindersley.
Nyarwath Orieare,(2007)Traditional Logic: An
Introduction, Nairobi: Consolata Institute of Philosophy
Press.

Introduction to Critical Thinking

Thinking is one single most important aspect which

characterizes all human beings. Human being is human
due to the fact of thinking rationally.
Human being can decide to either think positively or
negatively. Positive thinking results not only in
individual’s personal development but also in the general
societal economic development.Omole (2012: 7-9)
without positive thinking human beings cannot make any
progress in any field such as sciences, technology,
religion, archaeology and forensic investigation.
Critical thinking can be recognized in the contexts of our
personal relationships, work activities, and political
involvements. This activity entails much more than the
skills of logical analysis, it involves calling into question
the assumptions underlying our customary, habitual ways
of thinking and acting and then being ready to think and
act differently on the basis of this critical questioning.
Being a critical thinker is part of what it means to be a
developing person. Fostering critical thinking is crucial to
creating and maintaining a healthy democracy. Without
critical thinking our personal relationships become
shrunken, our place of work remain organized as they
were twenty years ago, and our political involvements
dwindle to the point of total non -participation. Stephen D
Brookfield (1987, 1)
Impartial Critical Thinking
In your deliberations you must try to be open minded, free
of bias and favoritism. There will be those who wish to
exploit your fears and prejudices and preconceptions:
unscrupulous advertisers who play on our fears of social
stigma to sell overpriced and often unnecessary
“remedies” for bad breath, body odour. Politicians who
pander to our fears to sell us dubious policies or activities
will be analyzed to ensure they receive proper judgment
of the soundness of their arguments. It is natural to feel
sympathy with those who have similar goals and interests
but it is not fair.
Adversarial critical thinking
Critical thinking is a useful weapon. However adversarial
critical thinking is not always the best.
Cooperative critical thinking: When critical thinking is
geared to search for truth.
Critical thinking which is part and apex of positive
thinking is, therefore necessary for all people in society.
Every individual in any race is capable of critical
thinking. It is never a preserve of any race. It must be
noted that many Western nations have always alleged that
thinking is alien to Africans. The likes of Friedrich Hegel
the German thinker who said that the mind of an African
Black man’s, is merely equivalent of the mind of a twelve
year old European. Many Western thinkers have
associated Africa with emotions and nothing more. Indeed
even such statements by Western trained African scholars
as “Africans are notoriously religious” have not helped
much.

Every people race and society is the same. They suffer

from the same factors. On the other hand the few
individuals from any race who have decided to think
independently are also found across all the races in equal
measure.

History of Critical and Creative thinking

The intellectual roots of critical and creative thinking are

as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the
teaching practice and vision of Socrates over 2500 years
ago. Socrates discovered that by a method of systematic
probing questionings, people could not rationally justify
their confident claims to knowledge.

Confused meaning inadequate evidence, or self -

contradictory beliefs often lurked beneath smooth but
largely empty rhetorics. Socrates established the fact that
one cannot depend upon those in authority to have sound
knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that a person
may have power and high position and yet be deeply
confused and irrational. He established the importance of
seeking evidence closely examining reasoning and
assumptions, analyzing basic concepts and tracing out
implications not only of what is said but of what is done
as well. His method of questioning is now known as
“Socratic method” and is the best known Critical and
Creative Thinking teaching strategy.

Socrates set the agenda for the traditional of Critical and

Creative thinking, namely, to reflective question common
beliefs and explanations carefully distinguished those
beliefs that are reasonable and logical from those which-
however appealing they maybe to our native egocentrism,
however much they serve our vested interests, however
comfortable or comforting they may be but lack adequate
evidence or rational foundation to warrant our belief.

Socrates agenda was followed by Plato (who recorded

Socrates thoughts he was also a student of
Socrates).Aristotle and the Greek skeptics emphasized
that things are often very different from what they appear
to be and that only the trained mind is prepared to see
through the way things look to us on the surface
( delusive appearance) to the way they really are beneath
the surface ( the deeper realities of life). From this ancient
Greek tradition emerged the need for anyone who aspired
to understand the deeper realities to think systematically,
to trace implications broadly and deeply, for only thinking
that is comprehensive, well-reasoned and responsive to
objections can take us beyond the surface.

Years later in France, Descartes wrote what might be

called the second text in Critical thinking. Rules for the
direction of the mind, in the book Descartes argues for the
need for a special systematic discipline of the mind to
guide it in thinking. He articulated the need in thinking
for clarity and precision. He developed the method for
critical thought based on the principle of systematic
doubt. He emphasized the need to base thinking on well-
thought through foundational assumptions. Every part of
thinking should be questioned, doubted and tested.
Another significant contribution to critical thinking was
made by the thinkers of the French Enlightenment: Bayle,
Montesqueieu, Voltare and Diderot> they all begun with
the premise that the human mind, when disciplined by
reason, is better able to figure out the nature of social
political world. What is more for thinkers, reason must
turn inward upon itselfin order to determine weaknesses
and strengths of thought.
Definition of terms

Critical thinking:
 It is an act of thinking about thinking while thinking
in order to make thinking better. It involves two
interwoven phases; it analyzes thinking. It evaluates
thinking.
 Critical thinking can be defined as the intellectually
disciplined process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing,
and or evaluating information gathered from or
generated by observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication as a guide to belief and
action.
 Critical thinking is a rational justification by which
judgment of ultimate reality is arrived at.
In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual
values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity,
accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound
evidence, good reasons depth, breadth, and fairness. It
entails the examination of those structures or elements of
thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem or
question at issue, assumptions and consequences,
objections from alternative view points and frame of
reference. Critical thinking- is responsive to variable
subjectmatters, issues and purposes- is incorporated in a
family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them:
scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical
thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking,
moral thinking and philosophical thinking.
As a way to process and generate information and beliefs
and habits, based on intellectual commitment of using
those skills to guide behavior. It has to be contrasted with
the mere acquisition and retention of information alone
(because it involves a particular way in which information
is sought or treated. The mere possession of a set of skill
because it involves the continual use of them) and the
mere use of those (as an exercise) without acceptance of
their results is not a proper usage of critical thinking.To
think critically, you must be willing to examine your
thinking and put it to some stern tests.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation
underlying it. When grounded on selfish motives, it is
often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in
service to one’s own, or ones groups vested interests.
When grounded fair mindedness and intellectual integrity,
it is typically of higher order intellectually, through
subject to the change of idealism by t hose habituated to
its selfish use.
Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or
strategies that increase the probability of a desirable
outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful,
reasoned and goal directed- the kind of thinking involved
in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating
likelihoods, and making decisions when the thinker is
using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the
particular context and type of thinking task.
Critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual
honesty and open mindedness, as opposed to
emotionalism, intellectual laziness and closed
mindedness. It involves following of evidence where it
leads; considering all possibilities; relying on reason than
emotions; being precise; considering variety of possible
view points and explanations; weighing the effects of
motives and biases; being concerned more in finding the
truth than with being right; not rejecting unpopular views
out of hand; being aware of ones prejudices and biases,
and not allowing to sway one’s judgment.
Critical thinking includes the ability to respond to
material by distinguishing between facts and opinions or
feelings, judgment and inferences, inductive and
deductive arguments, and objective and subjective. It also
includes the ability to generate questions, construct and
recognize the structure of arguments and adequately
support arguments; define, analyze correlate and analyze
material and data; integrate information and see
relationships; evaluate information, material and data by
drawing inferences arriving at reasonable and informed
conclusions, applying understanding and knowledge to
new and different problems, developing rational and
reasonable interpretations, suspending beliefs and
remaining open to new information, methods, cultural
systems, values and beliefs and by assimilating
information, methods, cultural systems, values and
beliefs.

Critical thinking is purposeful, self- regulatory judgment

that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and
inference, as well as explanation of the evidential,
conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual
consideration upon which t h at judgment is based.
Critical thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such
it is a liberating force in education and powerful resource
in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous
with good thinking, critical thinking is pervasive and self
-rectifying human phenomenon. It combines developing
critical thinking skills with nurturing those dispositions
which consistently yield useful insights and which are the
basis of a rational and democratic society.

Critical thinking is a lived activity not an abstract

academic pastime. It is something we all do, though its
frequency and credibility we grant it vary from person to
person. The ability to think critically is crucial to
understanding our personal relationships, envisioning
alternative and more productive ways oforganizing the
work place, and becoming politically literate

Thinking Process
Thinking: Any activity of mind. It is the use of the mind
to form concepts or ideas. Whenever the mind works on
the data given to it by the senses then it is thinking.
Thinking activities: Human activities which clearly
indicate some level of thinking include: laughing, smiling,
winking etc. most animals are involved in carrying out
some of these activities. But only human beings have
been so far proven to reason.
Thinking Process: an activity of the mind, it has three
levels which form the process of thinking.
 Simple apprehension: also called conception in the
first level when the mind forms ideas
 Judgment: When the mind joins two ideas to form
sentences
 Reasoning: It is the third level of thinking where the
mind uses sentences to form an argument.
 Thinking language: Language is any system of
sounds, words, pattern signs etc. used by human
beings to communicate their thoughts and feelings.
Whatever a human being is thinking or feeling cannot
be known unless it is put in a language form as
expressed by gestures, signs, words, symbols, pattern
or anything related to thought. Thus language is the
medium through which others come to know what we
are thinking. As such, the gestures, signs, words,
symbols, patterns used in language are assumed to be
a representation of what is thought.
 Different mental states in thinking
As much as the mind goes through a given thinking
process, it can at any time be in and exhibit different
mental states.Such different mental states depend on the
amount of knowledge present or absent in the mind. Each
way has its own way of influencing thinking.
Nescience: this is the state where the mind does not have
any form of knowledge absolutely.
Ignorance: this is the state where the mind lacks
knowledge which it otherwise ought to possess.
Doubt: this is the state where the mind has suspended its
judgment. The mind in this state is presented with some
knowledge whose truth appears to be of the same gravity
and apparently conflicting. Hence the mind suspends
judgment due to the fear it has of the possibility of
making error. Some causes of doubt include: Lack of
adequate knowledge of evidence, law, circumstances,
outcome or consequences of facts.
Opinion: opinions this is a state where the mind stops to
oscillate between two or more possible judgments and
settles on one. The probability of making an error has
been reduced or eradicated all together. Some causes of
forming an opinion include knowledge about the
overwhelming presence of facts, law, evidence,
circumstances and the possible consequences. Prejudice
and personal biases based on one’s upbringing and
environment also can contribute to this mental state.
Certitude: this is a state where the mind is most sure of
the truth about its judgment. Any fear of possibility of
making error has been completely eradicated. The causes
for certitude are the evidence, facts and circumstances
either in law or reality.

Criticality in Thinking
Critical thinking is a second though. It is thinking about
thinking or thing in the second order. Basically it involves
asking question on.
 Why things are the way they are?
 Why thing are not what they are not?
Thus it is to think twice about what appears to be

Critical thinking constitutes

Curiosity: the ability to raise questions: why, who, where,

when, now: about everything. Curiosity must be exhibited
in the eagerness to learn more and never by taking
anything for granted.
Skillfulness: criticality is constituted of some learned
skills in tackling issues, such as learned winning attitudes,
confidence, commitment and being passionate about a
course.
Planning: failure to plan is planning to fail. Criticality in
thinking can never be planning to fail. Hence planning is
an integral part of critical thinking. Through planning one
does not only prepare a course of action but churns the
specific means according to which his or her dreams
become reality.
Control or visualization: A critical thinker does not only
control himself or herself but also his or her own destiny.
One achieves this by avoiding unnecessary distractions,
fear of failure and other emotions.

Belief in oneself is important: One must identify solutions

to problems and see the available opportunities rather that
concentrating on obstacles.
Different strategies: You cannot do the same thing over
and over again and expect different results. No
development comes about by employing the same kind of
thinking which has created problems in the first place.
Criticality in thought means that one must have numerous
different strategies ready.
Ongoing learning: the beginning of wisdom is
acknowledgment of one’s ignorance. Everyone is ignorant
of something. Hence we need to keep humbling oneself to
learning more especially about new realities. Openness to
others and other possibilities is vital.
Paying attention: one must pay attention to the little
things and always strive for perfection. One must refuse
settling on lesser goals.
Creativity: thinking is creative when it generates,
evaluates renovates and improves the existing realities to
new development forms.
Rather than being contented with repeating things ones
must prove to be original, inventive and skillful.
Consistency: Neither confused nor fuzzy or fallacious
thought can ever be critical. One must be clear, articulate
and convincing both in thought and expression of the
same. Criticality in thinking is therefore devoid of any
contradictions whatsoever.
Analysis: Criticality in thinking is also shown in the
manner in which the mind is capable of processing and
purify the data presented to it. One’s mind must be
capable of splitting the scrutinizing the presented data in
order to see something.
Synthesis: Critical mind should be able to assemble
together the scattered pieces into one unified whole. This
is brought about by the way of coordinating different
ideas and creating unity within diversity for a better
construction.

Acts of minds
Reasoning and logic involves three fundamental mental
acts. These are simple apprehension, judgment and
inference. The first act of mind is called simple
apprehension, the second act of mind is called judgment,
and the third act of mind is inference. Reasoning takes
place in inference. Good reasoning or argument takes a
cognizance of the act of judgment (the truth value of
propositions used in an argument, however to determine
the truth value of a proposition presupposes simple
apprehension.
Simple Apprehension: it is an act by which the human
mind grasps the general meaning of an object or reality
without affirming of denying anything about it. Simple
apprehension is simply a perception of grasping a
meaning mentally. The intellect separates the essential
attributes from the individual or accidental ones.
Individual things present themselves inhuman experience
either through the senses or imagination. The mind
(intelligence) reads their essence, separating it from it
from the individuality. The mental act of operation of
separation essence from individuality is called
abstraction. It is from the act of abstraction that human
being come to develop a general concept. And it is the
process by which the mind forms the concepts or concept
formation that is referred to as simple apprehension.
Judgment: a mental act by which the mind affirms of
denies something about an object that has already been
apprehended it therefore presupposes the act of simple
apprehension. Judgments are expresses in propositions
that they affirm certain attributes to their subjects. The
judgment once expressed as propositions can be true or
false. Therefore propositions are either true or false. The
quality of proposition being either true or false is referred
to as truth-value.
Judgment contains the basis of reasoning. Reasoning is
the mental ordering of judgments, evaluating their
implications and drawing conclusion based on them. It is
on the basis of reasoning that arguments are formulated.
Reasoning is more of a mental process that results into an
argument- stated premises and conclusion. It is a mental
process that begins from certain assumption and moves on
to certain consequences thought to follow from those
assumptions. This process entails inference.
Inference is a mental act by which a judgment is derived
from a certain given judgments. In inference, the derived
judgment must be thought to be implied by the ones from
which it is derived. In the context of an argument, the
judgment from which another is derived or inferred is
called premise while the inferred judgment is called a
conclusion.

Logic
The study of methods and principles used to distinguish
good correct thinking from bad incorrect reasoning. In the
broadest sense, logic deals with the study of the evidential
link between the premises and conclusion. This definition
must not be taken to imply that only the students of logic
reason well or correctly. A person who has logic can
most likely reason correctly than one who has never
thought about the general principles involved in that
activity. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the
proper study of logic will approach it as an art as well as
science, and the student will do exercises in all parts of
the theory being learnt. Secondly, a traditional part of the
study of logic has been the examination and analysis of
fallacies, or mistakes in reasoning. Not only does this part
of the subject give increase insight into the principles of
reasoning in general, but an acquaintance with these
pitfalls help to keep us away from stumbling into them.
Thirdly the study of logic will give the student certain
technique, certain easily applied methods of testing the
correctness of many different kinds of reasoning,
including his own; and when errors are easily detected
they are less likely to be made.
All reasoning is thinking but not all thinking is reasoning.
There are many mental processes or kinds of thoughts that
are different from reasoning. One may remember
something or imagine it, or regret it without doing any
reasoning about it. The distinction between correct and
incorrect reasoning is the central problem that logic deals
with. The logician methods and techniques have been
developed primarily for the purpose of making this
distinction clear. The logician is interested with all
reasoning regardless of its subject matter, but only from
this point of view.
Premises and Conclusion
To clarify the explanation of logic offered above shall
present some of the terms used in logic.
Inference is a process by which one proposition is reached
and affirmed on the basis of one or more other
propositions accepted as the starting point of the process.
The logician is not concerned with the process of
inference, but with the propositions that are initial and end
points of that process, and the relationship between them.
Propositions: They are either true of false and in this they
differ from questions, commands and exclamations. Only
propositions can either be denied or asserted. The
difference between sentences and propositions is brought
out by remarking that a sentence is always a part of
language, the language in which it is articulated, whereas
propositions are not peculiar to any of the languages in
which they may be expressed.
Although the process of inference is not of interest to
logicians corresponding to every possible inference is an
argument, and it is with these arguments that logic is
chiefly concerned. The term inference refers to the
process by which one proposition is arrived at and
affirmed on the basis of one or more propositions
accepted as the starting of the process. To determine
whether the inference is correct, the logician examines the
propositions with which that process begins and ends, and
the relation between them. (Irving M. Copi&Carl Cohen
Introduction to Logic, 7)
Argument is any group of propositions of which one is
claimed to follow from others, which are regarded as
providing grounds for the truth of that one.
An argument is any group of propositions of which
one is claimed to follow from the others, which are
regarded as providing support of grounds for the
truth of that one. The word argument is used to refer
to the process itself, but in logic it has the technical
sense explained. It is not mere collection of
propositions, but has a structure. In describing this
structure the terms premise and conclusion are
usually employed. The conclusion of an argument is
that proposition which is affirmed on the basis of the
other propositions of the argument and these other
propositions which are affirmed as providing the
grounds or reasons from accepting the conclusion are
the premises of that argument. It should be noted that
premises and conclusion are relative terms one and the
same proposition can be a premises in one argument
and a conclusion in another.
To carry out the logician task of distinguishing correct
from incorrect arguments, one must first be able to
recognize arguments when they occur, and to identify
their premises and conclusions.
Deduction and induction: arguments are traditionally
divided into town types, deductive and inductive. A
deductive argument involves the claim that its premises
provide conclusive grounds. In the case of deductive
argument the technical term valid and in of valid are used
in the place correct and incorrect. A deductive argument
is valid when its premises, if true do provide conclusive
grounds for its conclusion, that is when premise and
conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible
for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true
also. The task of deductive logic is to clarify the nature of
the relation between premises and conclusion in valid
arguments, and thus to allow us to discriminate valid and
invalid arguments.
Inductive argument on the other hand, involves the
claim, not that its premises give conclusive grounds for
the truth of its conclusion only that it provides some
grounds for it. Inductive arguments may be evaluated as
better or worse according to the degree of likelihood or
probability which is their premises confers upon their
conclusions.
NB in deductive arguments we infer particular from
general truths; while in inductive we infer general from
particular
Truth, validity and invalidity
Validity is an attribute of a deductive argument, and not
of an inductive argument. The form is constituted by the
relationship between the propositions of an argument. Put
differently, the form refers to the nature of relationship
between the premises and conclusion of a deductive
argument. Therefore validity is a relational condition
between the propositions of a deductive argument such
that the truth of its premises is granted, then the truth of
its conclusion is also established necessarily. In such
situation it is impossible for one to accept the truth of the
premise but at the same time deny the truth of its
conclusion without a contradiction. By accepting the truth
of the premises of a valid argument, one implicitly
accepts the truth of its conclusion.
All human beings are rational beings
All African are human beings
Therefore all Africans are rational being
Invalidity
It is also an attribute of a deductive argument, and not of
inductive argument. It is a rational condition between the
proposition of a deductive argument, but such that the
truth of its premises, if granted, does not guarantee the
truth of its conclusion. The propositions of an invalid
deductive argument are arranged or related in such a way
that the truth of the premises, if granted does not imply
the truth of its conclusion. The given conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the given premises. This means
that the truth of the premises given together does not
entail the meaning expresses in the conclusion. In such a
condition one can accept the truth of the premises and still
deny the truth of the conclusion at the same time without
contradiction.
An invalid argument therefore has a bad or incorrect
structure such that the truth of the premises, if granted
does not justify the truth of its conclusion. Therefore an
invalid argument is a bad one. For example
All Kenyans are Africans
All Ugandans are African
Therefore all Ugandans are Kenyans
Truth
The main aim of reasoning is to establish the truth of the
assertions made (given conclusions) on the basis of truth
of the given premises evidence. So if in any reasoning
there is a failure to establish either necessarily or with
some degree of probability, the truth of assertions made
given conclusions then the reasoning is defective. And
this is due to either the arguments being either invalid or
weak or some of the premise used being false- ignoring
the truth of the propositions used. The following
argument fails to establish the truth of its conclusion, not
because it ignores the truth of its premises but because it
has a defective structure.

Cows have teeth and John has teeth. Therefore John is a

cow.

Proposition: are either true of false, and in this way differ

from questions, commands and exclamations. Only
propositions can either be asserted of denied. Questions
may be asked and commands given and exclamations
uttered, but none of them can be affirmed of denied or
judged to be either true of false.
Sentences and the propositions may be used to assert.
Two sentences, which are clearly two because they
consist of different words differently arranged may in the
same context have the same meaning and express the
same proposition. For example
John loves Jane: Jane is loved by John. The two sentences
have exactly the same meaning. It is customary to use the
term proposition to refer to what such sentences as they
may be used to assert.
The difference between sentences and propositions is
brought out by the remarking that a sentence is always a
part of the language and the language in which it is
annunciated, whereas propositions are not peculiar to any
languages in which they may be expressed.
The term proposition and statement are not exactly
synonyms, but in the context of logical investigation they
are used in much the same sense.
Premise and conclusion are relative terms one and the
same propositions can be a premises in an argument and a
conclusion in another
THE TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
Live is punctuated by problem solving- in fact chief
occupation of life is problem solving. Reasoning is
necessary tool in problem solving. When we are
confronted with a problem we reason from what we
already know or believe to know to new instances of
knowledge or beliefs which we think as useful in solving
the problem. The important fact is that in problem solving
we must reason well and logically. This however is not an
easy task.
Reasoning can be cast in form of an argument. An
argument is a set of propositions standing in relation to
each other, of which one proposition is called conclusion,
is claimed to follow from other called premises. Such
proposition is said to provide support or reason to believe
one of the other. The former are called premises while the
latter is called conclusion. The argument which premises
support the conclusion is called a good argument. Those
arguments which premises do not support the conclusion
are said to be bad arguments.
In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to
persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or
evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. The
general structure of an argument in a natural language is
that of premises (typically in the form of propositions,
statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the
conclusion. Many arguments can also be formulated in a
formal language. An argument in a formal language
shows the logical form of the natural language arguments
obtained by its interpretations. Logic is science that
evaluates arguments; it develops methods and techniques
that allow as to distinguish good argument from bad
argument. Verbal exchange between two or more persons
needs not to constitute an argument.
One of the most important intellectual skills central to
educational enterprise is the ability to deal with
arguments. In fact, almost everything you study is
connected with this task. While the subject matter varies
from one course to another, in almost all disciplines the
major purpose of study is to develop students’ ability to
read understand, evaluate and construct arguments,
written or oral.

Argument:
Argument is a process of making what we think clear to
ourselves and to others. It takes point to use from a vague,
private view point to clearly stated position that we can
defend publicly by speech or writing. Like any journey,
the process provides us with discoveries and new
knowledge. If we understand this process in a spirit of
honesty and openness we can compare it to search for
truth.
Put simply, an argument is an attempt to persuade
someone of something. It is prompted usually by
disagreement, confusion or ignorance about something
which the arguers wish to resolve or illuminate in
convincing way. Arguments are staple ingredients of
many conversation, as well as the heart of any inquiry
into the truth or probability of something. As well as the
heart of any inquiry into the truth or probability of
something ( judiciary process, a scientific research
project, policy analysis, a business plan, and so forth.
Argument can also be internal, as for example when we
are faced with making a difficult choice. For example
who should I vote for etc.the final goal of an argument is
usually to reach a conclusion which is sufficiently
persuasive to convinced someone of something ( a course
of action, the reasons of an event, responsibility for
certain acts, the probable truth of analysis, or validity of
an interpretation. Argument may also often have a
negative purpose: to convince someone that something is
not the case.
According to NyarwathOriare(10, 2007)it is a set of
propositions in which the truth of one of the propositions
is claimed to be established on the basis of the truth of the
other propositions either necessarily or by probability.
The one whose truth is asserted on the basis of the truth of
the other is called conclusion while the one/ ones whose
truth provide the basis for the truth of the conclusion is/
are called the premise/ premises.

How should we approach arguments?

Developing the right attitudes is the first step in process of
making an argument. We must care enough about
opinions to want them heard- this is part of self -respect.
We must also try not to get our feeling hurt or become
defensive when our opinions are questioned; other people
can respect us, like us, but still reasonably disagree with
something we have said. Often their disagreement is the
key to our own out looking maturing. Finally if we want
our views to heard and responded to thoughtfully we must
listen to others and offer responses intended to help rather
than to hurt. Approached this way arguments can be
something we look forward rather that something we
dread and avoid. This way everyone wins.
What are the aims of an argument?
1. To express oneself all arguments are expressive to
some degree. To societies that value freedom of
speech, argument as self- expression is common.
2. Argue to inquire: this help to inform opinion,
question opinions we already have, and to reason our
way through the conflicts or contradictions.
3. Argue to convince: arguing to convince is commonly
found in scholarly and professional writing.
4. Arguing to persuade: persuasion tries to influence the
behavior as well as to move them to act upon the
convictions. This is commonly used in advertisement.
5. Arguing to negotiate: attempt to convince the
opponent of our case and to persuade the opponent to
settle a conflict of dispute to our satisfaction. It
requires sound logic and clear presentation of
positions and reasons. Negotiation challenges our
interpersonal skills more than do the other aim. In
negotiations we are less concerned with our own
claims to truth that we are in overcoming conflict, we
 find some common ground that will allow us to work
together.
Categories or arguments
Trivial arguments: some arguments are relatively
trivial and easy to resolve. For example if I argue that I
am taller that you and you disagree the we can may
argue about the fact. Argument like the one above is
easy to deal with so long as two conditions hold: first
there is a quick authoritative way of resolving the
difference. Secondly the disputants agree to
acknowledge the authority. Such kind of arguments
arerelatively trivial. Their resolution is easy and quick
because there is an immediate authority to establish the
facts. There is general agreement on authority. Thus
once authority rules out the question then the argument
is over.

More complex and interesting arguments

Argument become more complex when are not

immediately certain about how to resolve them. These
forms of arguments are common in science and in
social science. Where the issue is often the adequacy of
a particular research model or method which c has
come up with certain conclusions. The central issues
then is whether or not the text which has been advised
to resolve the argument is adequate. This point is even
more obvious if we move to even more complex
arguments like the guilt or innocence of an accused
person. To obtain a conclusion we have to set up an
agreed upon process in which the different possibilities
are presented, explored, challenges, in sort argued and
then finally adjudicated by a disinterested third party a
judge for example all within a context of some
knowledge ofrules of what counts as evidence or
acceptable presentation of a case and what does not.
The entire complex process requires from the
participants a shared agreement about the
appropriateness of the means undertaken to resolve it
and along the process of argument.
Importance of reason
In our society, for causes too complex one must first
and formost, have and understanding of the rules of
reasoning. The major tool aim of an undergraduate
education is to instill discipline in reasoning by
providing them with skills for detecting such
arguments.
Others are Formal and informal arguments
Further information: Informal logic and Formal logic
Informal arguments as studied in informal logic, are
presented in ordinary language and are intended for
everyday discourse. Conversely, formal arguments are
studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic
logic, more commonly referred to as mathematical
logic today) and are expressed in a formal language.
Informal logic may be said to emphasize the study of
 argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes
implication and inference. Informal arguments are
sometimes implicit. That is, the logical structure –the
relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of
implication, and conclusion –is not always spelled out
and immediately visible and must sometimes be made
explicit by analysis.

An overview of the major tools

Three basic tools
1. Clear definition
2. Deductive reasoning
3. Inductive reasoning

Therefore an argument can as well be defined as a set of

premises and a conclusion. Since conclusion is drawn i.e.
inferred from the premise(s) an argument then must have
at-least two propositions one is a premise and the other
being a conclusion.
1. For example, since we are at the month of December
the next month must be January.
2. Those who drink alcohol get drunk. Those who are
drunk fall asleep. Those who are asleep commit no
sins. Those who commit no sins go to heaven.
Therefore those who drink alcohol go to heaven.
 It should be noted that in an argument, the conclusion
need not be stated last. It can as well be stated first or
within premises.

Normally we classify all arguments into one of two types:

deductive and inductive.
Proposition: a proposition is a sentence that is either true
or false. The condition of a sentence being either true or
false is referred to as a truth value. A proposition is
therefore a sentence with truth value. For example
Tangaza University College is in Nairobi. So a
proposition is a declarative sentence as opposed to
interrogative sentence (question) exclamation, imperative
sentence (commands) suggestion and performativity
sentences e.g.
i. Interrogative sentence e.g. how many people are in
the room
ii. Imperative sentence: please close the window
iii. Exclamation: what a nice day
iv. Suggestion: let’s dance tonight
v. Performance sentence: e.g. with this water I bless
you.
Types of propositions
They can be simple propositions or compound
proposition.
A simple proposition is normally a categorical one.
Compound propositions are hypothetical conditional,
disjunctive, conjunctive or bi-conditional.
Example of hypothetical (conditional) proposition is of
the form If p then Q, e.g. If one is Kenyan then one is
an African. A disjunctive statement is in the form of
either p or Q e.g. either one is noble or ignoble.
Conjunctive statement is in the form of both p and q if
and only if q, e.g. one is a wife if and only if one has a
husband.
Categorical statement: is one that asserts that the
subject class is either wholly or partially included in or
excluded from the predictive class. A standard
categorical statement has four components
1. Quantifier
2. Subject term ( a subject term represents a subject
class)
3. Copula( a form of verb to be e.g. is or are
4. A predicate term ( a predicate term represents a
predicate class)
Therefore, standard categorical proposition takes any
of the following forms:
a. all human beings are mortal
b. no human being are mortal
 c. some human beings are mortal
d. some human beings are not mortal

Standard argument types

There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best-

known of which are "deductive" and "inductive." These
are sometimes referred to broadly as "truth-preserving"
arguments, because they assert something about the truth
of a particular claim. A deductive argument asserts that
the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the
premises. An inductive argument, on the other hand,
asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the
premises. Each premise and the conclusion are truth
bearers or "truth-candidates", capable of being either true
or false (and not both). While statements in an argument
are referred to as being either true or false, arguments are
referred to as being valid or invalid (see logical truth). A
deductive argument is valid if and only if the truth of the
conclusion is entailed by (is a logical consequence of) the
premises, and its corresponding conditional is therefore a
logical truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with
true premises; a valid argument may well have false
premises.
While in an inductive argument, they are thought to
provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable
truth. The standards for evaluating other kinds of
arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than
truth, however, such as the persuasiveness of so-called
"indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments or
even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and
acting.

Deductive
Arguments are those meant to work because of their
pattern alone, so that if the premises are true the
conclusion could not be false. In a typical deductive
argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee
of the truth of the conclusion,
Examples of deductive arguments:
All human beings have the right to die with dignity when
they wish. Therefore terminally ill patient has the right to
an assisted suicide.
All people on free society must be treated equally under
the law homosexuals citizens in our society must
therefore be granted full legal spousal benefits, equivalent
of heterosexual citizens.
Inductive (or just non-deductive), this is a logical process
in which we proceed from particular evidence to a
conclusion which on the basis of that evidence, we agree
to be true or probably true. Such thinking is often called
empirical reasoning or probably true. It requires evidence
* facts, data measurement observation and so on.
Induction is the basis of a great deal of scientific and
technical arguments, those that information. It is the basis
for most literary interpretation, historical analysis of
arguments and so on. Any argument which relies (for
persuasiveness of its conclusion) on collection of data, on
the measurement and on information collected somehow
rather than on general principles is an inductive argument.
These are meant to work because of the actual
information in the premises so that if the premises are true
the conclusion is not likely to be false. The difference is
between certainty (we can be sure the conclusion is
correct) and probability (we can bet on the conclusion
being correct).

We now go one step further. A deductive argument with

the right form is considered to be valid, regardless of the
truth of the premises. When the premises are in fact true
and the argument is valid, then we call it sound.

Model X gets better mileage, costs less to purchase and

maintain and has a better all-round rating in the consumer
Reports than model Y. Therefore it makes more sense for
me to purchase Model X rather that model Y.
Six out of ten text sample of the water in that lake
collected and analyzed by university researcher last week,
revealed unsatisfactory high levels of contamination. We
must investigate this problem further and post warning
signs on the beach immediately.
Inductive arguments can be seen as strong (the conclusion
is more likely to be true because of support provided by
the premises) or as weak. When an inductively strong
argument does have true premises, we call it cogent.

How strong does an argument have to be to be

acceptable? A good rule to start with is that the more is at
risk, the more likely you want the conclusion to be
correct. For instance, in a civil case (the kind that occurs
when one person sues another) a magistrate decides
between two sides based simply on the preponderance of
the evidence, and typically there can be a split decision
among the jurors. However, in a criminal case there is
obviously more at stake (it could be a person's freedom or
possibly his life), and so the magistrate is asked to decide
unanimously on the basis of there not being a reasonable
doubt about their verdict. In everyday life, you would
expect a stronger argument about where to transfer for the
last two years of college than you would about what
movie to see next weekend.
All arguments then can be classified as valid or invalid. If
valid, they are sound or unsound. If invalid, they are
strong or weak and then, depending on the premises,
cogent or not cogent. Note that a strong argument by
definition cannot be valid, and a valid argument by
definition cannot be strong.
Some additional notes: an argument that misuses a form
(what we will call a formal fallacy) may not be valid but
then we need to look at it in terms of inductive strength.
Also, an argument may be technically sound (valid with
acceptable premises) but still not a "good" argument
because of some informal fallacy (another kind of mistake
in the reasoning but one not related to the pattern). Most
typically this could be a problem of what we call begging
the question, when the premises would be acceptable only
if someone already accepted the conclusion as true.
(We'll see more about this later on.)
In the first part of the course we are going to look more
closely at the form taken by deductive arguments that
involve complete statements with a premise expressed as
a conditional relationship (one that can be restated with
the phrases "if" or "only if"). Inductive arguments can be
seen as involving reasoning based on the similarities of
things or events (reasoning by analogy), reasoning based
on inferences from a limited group to a much larger one
(inductive generalizations and statistical arguments),
reasoning about what is likely to take place in the future
or have taken place in the past (think of explanations such
as those a jury is called up to make in a trial), and
especially reasoning that sets out to decide cause and
effect relationships. We will be looking at all this in more
detail in the second half of the course.
In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises, if
granted only offers a partial or a probable support to the
truth of its conclusion. If the truth of the premises of an
inductive argument is granted, then the truth of its
conclusion is only probable, but not granted. In this
argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is
probably true. For example there are 100 mangoes in a
basket 70 of the mangoes picked at random are found to
be rotten. Therefore, probably all the 100 mangoes in the
basked are rotten.
In an inductive argument the truth of the conclusion
follows from the truth of the premises only with some
degree of probability. As we can see in the argument, the
truth of the premises does not necessarily imply or point
to the truth of the conclusion. Despite the truth of the
premises, the truth of the conclusion has only the
probability of being true, the conclusion can be either true
of false. Therefore in inductive argument, if the truth of
the premises is granted, then the truth of conclusion is
only a matter of probability.
A final point to be considered is how strong is a claim
(the type of statement that might become a conclusion in
an argument). Saying that Jack will get a perfect score on
his exam is a stronger claim than saying he will do well
on it. A good working rule for evaluating arguments
intended to prove such claims is that the stronger the
claim, the better the evidence should be. For instance,
knowing that Jack is a good student and is studying hard
might not be enough to justify saying he will do well on
his exam, but we would need more evidence before we
can say he will get a perfect score. We would have a
much stronger case for this if we also knew the test was
comparatively easy.

Validity, Strength, Truth

Validity: it is an attribute of a deductive argument and not

of an inductive argument. Validity is a relational
condition between the propositions of a deductive
argument such that if the truth of the premises is granted,
then the truth of the conclusion is also established
necessarily. In such case it is impossible to accept the
truth of the premises of the argument but deny at the same
time the truth of its conclusion without a contradiction.
This is because, in a valid argument, the meaning of the
conclusion is already contained in the meaning of the
premises taken together.
For example:
All human being are rational beings
All African are human beings
Therefore all Africans are rational beings
In this argument, if one accepts that all human beings are
rational being, and that all Africans are rational like the
rest of human beings. Therefore in this argument, the
claim of the premises justifies the claim in the conclusion.

Invalidity

It is also an attribute of a deductive argument and not an

inductive argument. It is a relational condition between
the propositions of a deductive argument, but such that
the truth of its premises if granted, does not guarantee the
truth of its conclusion. In other words, the given
conclusion does not follow necessarily from the given
premises. This means that the meaning of the premises
taken together does not entail the meaning of expressed
conclusion at the same time without any contradiction.
For example:
All Africans are black
All Kenyans are black
Therefore, all Kenyan are Africans
Invalid argument therefore has a bad or incorrect structure
such that the truth of the premises, if granted, does, not
justify truth of it conclusion. From the above argument we
can see that the conclusion is dependent on the truth of
the premises and it is not just by the premises.

Strength
Strength is normally used when referring to an inductive
argument, and not to deductive one. So we can say that
that it is an attribute of an inductive argument. Like
validity or invalidity, strength is also relational condition
that holds between the propositions (premises and
conclusion) of an inductive argument. So refers to a kind
of structure of an inductive argument.
And inductive argument is said to be strong when it is
such a that if its premises are assumed or granted to be
true, then the conclusion has a higher probability of being
true, that is, its conclusion is most likely to be true.
Example:
There are 50 students in the logic class
40 of them picked at random are found poor in logic.
Therefore, probably all the students in the class are poor
in logic
In this example, there is a higher chance that the
remaining 10students are equally poor in logic. However
it is also probably that some of the remaining 10students
are not poor in logic. But probability is that the 10students
are also poor in logic like the 40 is higher.
A weak inductive argument is such that if its premises are
assumed true, then its conclusion has little or no
probability of being true. For example:
There are 50 students in logic class
10 of them picked at random are found poor in logic
Therefore, probably all the 50 students are poor in logic.
If the two kinds of inductive arguments are compared,
then it is the case that in the strong inductive argument,
the truth of the premises offers a greater probability of
establishing the truth of its conclusion. But in the weak
one, the truth of the premises offers little probability of
establishing the truth of its conclusion.

Truth

To confine logic only to the form of arguments, in

disregard of the content of the propositions involved, is to
reduce logic to absurdity.
For example: living things breathe and stones are living
things. Therefore stones breath.
This argument is valid. But still they are defective
because they have ignored the truth of the individual
propositions that constitute them. If we were to reason in
real life in total disregard of the truth of the propositions,
as is the case with the above examples, then what would
be the aim of such manner of reasoning? The main
purpose of reasoning is to establish the truth of the
assertions made given conclusion in the basis of truth of
the conclusions inferred.

In logic we often make the distinction between

hypothetical and actual truth. We can assume that certain
propositions are true for the sake of illustration in order to
see what would be the implications were the propositions
actually true. For such purpose the propositions need not
to be true in reality. Such assumption of truth is what is
referred to as hypothetical truth. Hypothetical truth is
used only to establish validity (in case of deductive
argument) strength ( in case on inductive arguments). For
example:
All human being have 3legs and Onyango is a human
being. Therefore, Onyango has 3legs.
If we assume that it is true that all human beings have
3legs and that is true that Onyango is a human being, then
it must also be accepted to be case, on the basis of
assumption alone, that Onyango has 3 legs. The
conclusion is inferred only from the assumption that the
premises are true. So, on the basis of the assumed truth
we accept the truth of the conclusion. Hypothetical truth
helps in illustrating and understanding forms or structures
of arguments.

Sound argument: Soundness or unsoundness applies to

deductive arguments and not inductive arguments. A
sound argument is deductive argument that is both valid
and has all actually true premises. In such a case the
argument establishes the truth of its conclusion.
All human beings breathe, and Onyango is a human
being. Therefore, Onyango breathes. Therefore a sound
argument is a deductive argument that is not defective
either factually or logically.
All sound argument must fulfill the following conditions
 1. it must be valid and
2. It must have all its premises being actually true

Unsound argument
This is a deductive argument that is either invalid or has
at least a false premise. An argument may be valid, but if
it has false premises it cannot justify or establish the truth
of its conclusion. Conversely deductive argument may
have all actually true premises but it is invalid then it
cannot justify the truth of its conclusion.
All catholic priests are unmarried
and all catholic nuns are unmarried.
Therefore all catholic nuns are catholic priests.
Nature of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is exclusively concerned with the

development of potential capacities in human being.
Capacities are that part of mind known as the intellect.
Most people do not develop there intellect. They use it
ineffectively and often mainly to rationalize their infantile
or egocentric drives. Most people are not in charge of
their ideas and thinking. Most of the ideas have come into
their mind without having thought about them.
Theyunconsciously pick up what people around them
think. They unconsciously pick up what is on the
television or in the movies. They unconsciously absorb
ideas from the family in which they were reared. They are
products, through and through of forces they did not
choose. They reflect those forces without understanding
them. They are like puppets that don’t know that there
strings are pulled up.
To become critical thinker is the reverse of this process-
by learning to practice side skills that enable one to start
to take charge of the ideas that runs one’s life. It is to
think consciously and deliberately and skillfully in ways
that transforms one self. It is to begin to remake one’s
inner workings and to understand the systems one is
running. It is to develop a mind that is analogous to the
body of a person who is physically fit

Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking

focused on deciding what to believe or do.
Critical thinking has developed a rich conception,
involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and
attitudes, which together delineates virtues which has both
intellectual and moral aspects. The threat of
indoctrination is counteracted by the importance of
individual judgment, and the prevalence of fanatical
opinions. Critical thinking enables students to develop
certain skills if the knowledge acquired is not to produce
individuals who passively accept the teacher’s wisdom or
the creed which is dominant in their own society. i. the
ability to form an opinion for oneself, ii the ability to find
impartial solution, iii, the ability to identify the question.
Critical thinking is the use of a combination of logical,
rhetorical, and philosophical skills and attitudes which
promotes the ability to discover inter-subjectively what
we shouldbelieve.
 From logic, critical thinking derives methods
foranalysing and evaluating arguments.
 From rhetoric, it derivesmethods for invention (that
is, for generating questions abouta given theme or
problem),and communication.
 Fromphilosophy it derives a critically reflective,
reflexive, ethical,and pragmatic attitude. In order to
understand how criticalthinking differs from
traditional logic, it will help to focus upon its
rhetorical and philosophical aspects.
Critical thinking has three dimensions: analytical, an
evaluative and recreative component.
As thinkers we evaluate it in order to improve it. In other
words critical thinking is a systematic monitoring of
thoughts with the end of improvement. When we think
critically, we realize that thinking must not be accepted at
face value but must be analyzed and assessed for clarity,
accuracy relevance, depth, breadth and logicalness. We
recognize that all reasoning occurs within points of view
and frames of reference, that all reasoning proceed from
some goals and objectives and has an informational base,
that all data when used in reasoning must be interpreted,
that interpretation involves concepts, that concepts entails
assumptions, and that all basic inferences in thought have
implication. Because problem in thinking can occur in
any of these dimensions, each dimension must be
monitored.
When we think critically, we realize that in every domain
of human thought, it is possible and important to question
the parts of thinking and the standards for thought.
Richard Paul, Linda Elder, Critical Thinking xxxiv.

According to Namwambah we recognize that critical

thinking, by its very nature, requires, for example, the
systematic monitoring of thoughts, that thinking to be
critical, must not be accepted at face value but must be
analyzed and assessed for its clarity, accuracy, relevance,
depth, breadth and logicalness. We now recognize that
critical thinking by its very nature requires, for example
the recognition that all reasoning occurs within points of
view and frames of reference, that all reasoning proceed
from some goals and objectives, has an informational
base, that all data when used in reasoning must be
interpreted, that interpretation involves some concepts,
that concepts that entails assumptions, and that all basic
inferences in thought have implications. We also
recognize that each of these dimensions of thinking need
to be monitored and that problems of thinking can occur
in any of them.

The result of the collective contribution of the history of

critical though is that the basic questions of Socrates can
now be much more powerfully and focally framed and
used. In every domain of human thought and within every
use of reasoning within the domain it is now possible to
question.
Ends of and objectives
 The status and wording of questions
 The sources of information and fact
 The method and quality of information collection
 The mode of judgment and reasoning used
 The concept that make that reasoning possible
 The assumption that underlie concept in use
 The implications that follow from their use
 The point of view of frame if reference within which
reasoning takes place.

II. Rhetorical elements of critical thinking.

We develop our own views in part through discursive

interchangewith others. Dialectic (in the Socratic sense)6
is theapproach to this discourse which focuses resolutely
uponwhat it is reasonable and ethical to believe. This
approachdemands humility, open-mindedness, and a
willingness tocooperate with others, in part because
discourse oftenthreatens the participants' ego- and socio-
centric beliefsystems'?
Because critical thinking is both difficult andthreatening,
we must utilize rhetorical strategies of communicate onto
promote and facilitate the cooperation which isessential to
dialectic.
This view goes back to Aristotle, whorecognized that,
while logical and rhetorical strategies differ,they
complement each other and are applied together.
Thus,rhetorical strategies must be critically evaluated as a
part ofthe communicative context in which both they and
logicalstrategies are applied. In order to differentiate
between thiscontext and particular arguments that may be
abstracted fromit, I use the terms argumentation and
argument (for communicativecontext and abstractable
content/structure,respectively) in this essay. The tradition
of informal logicrecognizes this need: for example,
theorists of dialectic, logic

Because critical thinking involves the often

threateningconfrontation of claims and belief-systems, it
requires carefulattention to the "audience" and its
necessary influence uponthe style of argumentation. The
science of rhetoric has analysedand developed many such
styles. One which is particularlyuseful for defusing
possible feelings of threat and emotionalreactions is
Rogerian rhetoric, which "rests on the assumptionthat a
man holds to his beliefs about who he is and what the
world is like because other beliefs threaten his identity
and inintegrity."
Before we conclude this topic on the nature of critical
thinking, we shall do a recap of the nature of critical
thinking in the following points:
1. Dispositions: critical thinkers are skeptical, open
minded, value fair-mindedness, respect, evidence and
reasoning, respect clarity and precision, looking at
different points of views, and will change position
when reason lead them to do so.
2. Criteria: to think critically, must apply criteria. Need
to have conditions that must be met for something to
be judged as believable. Although the argument can
be made that such subject area has different criteria,
some standards apply to all subjects. An assertion
must be based on relevant, accurate facts, based on
credible sources; precise; unbiased; free from logical
fallacies; logical consistent; and strongly reasoned.
3. Argument: Critical thinking involves identifying,
evaluating and constructing arguments.
4. Reasoning: the ability to infer a conclusion from
multiple premises. To do so requires examining
logical relationships among statements of data.
5. Point of View: the way one views the world, which
shapes one’s construction of meaning. In search for
understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena
from many different points of views.
6. Procedure for applying criteria: other types of
thinking use a general procedure. Critical thinking
use of many procedures. These procedures include
 asking questions, making judgments and identifying
assumptions.

Impediments (obstacles) to Critical Thinking

It is my understanding that the most common

impediments to critical thinking should be sorted into two
categories: (1) Those hindrances that arise because of
how we think (2) Those that occur because of what we
think. Much of the thinking of the untrained mind is
distorted, incomplete, biased, uninformed and prejudiced.
The five impediments to critical thinking that I find to be
an obstacle are: egocentricity, bias, cultural assumption,
prejudice, and empirical. Describing why I think these
are impediments and my developed strategy to overcome
each one.
Egocentricity: By definition is a tendency to view
everything in relationship to oneself; to confuse
immediate perception (how things seem) with reality.
Egocentricity is probably one of the most common
fundamental impediments to critical thinking. So, when
one learns to think critically, then one also learns to
become more logical, and less egocentric. Bias: By
definition is a mental leaning or inclination. To clearly
distinguish there are two different senses of the word
’’bias’’. The first one is neutral, the other negative. In the
neutral sense we are referring simply to the fact that,
because of one's point of view, one notices some things
rather than others, emphasizes some points rather than
others, and thinks in one direction rather than others. This
is not in itself a criticism because thinking within a point
of view is unavoidable. In the negative sense, we are
implying blindness or irrational resistance to weaknesses
within one's own point of view or to the strength or
insight within a point of view one opposes. Cultural
assumption: By definition is often a belief adopted by
virtue of upbringing in a society. By one being raised in a
specific society, we unconsciously take on the point of
views, values, beliefs, and practices of that society. Not
knowing that we perceive, conceive, think, and
experience within...

There are three fields within which we examine the

common obstacles namely:
 Examine the commonly understood and
philosophically accepted class and categories of
fallacies.
 Understand the application of certain cognitive biases
that exploit the blind spots of our mental
composition.
  Be cautious of the very deceptive conversational
gimmicks that from the surface value looks true,
convincing and yet flaws reason.

There are many obstacles that impede man from clear

thinking, some are purely derivatives of individuals’
mental laxity, paternalistic indoctrination, religious
dogmas and influence, peer group and social influence,
schooling environment and dictatorial tendencies evident
in proclivities systems. All these aspects are summarized
in what Francis Bacon, a British philosopher referred as
the idols. Idols are false images which cause men to see
everything in relation to the universe.
The intellectual need be purged by the practice of true
induction. But in order to attain clarity of thought, Bacon
insists that the idols (barriers to clear thinking) should
also be pointed out explicitly.

FALLACIES
The word fallacy is used in various ways. Etymologically,
fallacies are errors in reasoning which from the surface
value look accurate and convincing but when exposed to
retrospection are found flawed. One perfectly proper use
of the word is to designate any mistaken idea of false
belief, like the fallacy of believing that all men are honest.
But logician use the term in a narrow sense of an error in
reasoning or in argument. A fallacy is a type of incorrect
argument. Some arguments of course are so obviously in
correct as to deceive no one. It is customary in the study
of logic to reserve the term fallacy for arguments which
may be psychologically persuasive, although incorrect.
We therefore define a fallacy as an argument that may
seem to be correct but which proves, upon examination
not to be so. It is an error in reasoning. It is profitable to
study these mistaken arguments, because the trap they set
can best be avoided when they are well understood. To be
forewarned is to be forearmed. Our logical standards
should be high, but our application of them to arguments
in ordinary life should also be generous and we must be
fair.
Howe many different kinds of mistakes in arguments-
different fallacies- may be distinguished? Aristotle the
first systematic logician identifies 13 types; recently the
listing of more than 100 has been developed. We shall
distinguish. However there is no universally accepted
classification of fallacies.
Fallacies are divided into two broad groups, formal and
informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are most conveniently
discussed in connection with certain patterns of valid
inferences to which they bear a special resemblance.
Informal fallacies on the other end are errors in reasoning
into which we may fall either because of carelessness and
the attention to our subject matter or through being misled
by some ambiguity in the language used to formulate the
argument. We may divide informal fallacies into fallacies
of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity.
Fallacies of Relevance
Common to all arguments that commit fallacies of
relevance is the circumstances that their premises are
logically irrelevant to, and therefore incapable of
establishing the truth of there conclusions. The
irrelevance here is logical rather than psychological. A
number of particularly types of irrelevant arguments have
traditionally been given Latin names. Some of these Latin
names have become part of the English language. How
they succeed in being persuasive despite their logical
incorrectness is in the same cases to be explained by their
expressive function of evoking attitude likely to cause the
acceptance of, rather than supplying grounds for the truth
of, the conclusions they urge.
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (appeal to force)
They are fallacies committed when one appeals to force
or threat to cause acceptance of a conclusion. It is usually
resulted to only when the evidence of rational arguments
fails it is epitomized in the saying. Might is right. The use
of threat and strong arm methods to coerce political
opponents provide contemporary examples of this fallacy.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Abusive)
This translates literally as “argument directed to the
person” it is susceptible to two interpretations, first
abusive variety. It is committed when instead of trying to
disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the
person who made the assertion. The way in which this
irrelevant argument may sometimes persuade is through
the psychological process of transference. Where an
attitude of disapproval towards a person can be evoked.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
(CIRCUMSTANTIAL)
This is another interpretation of argumentum ad
hominem, this variety pertains to the relationship between
a person’s belief and his circumstances. When two
persons are disputing one may ignore the question of
whether his contention is true or false and seek instead to
prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of his
opponent’s special circumstances. This is one’s adversary
clergyman, one may argue that a certain contention must
be accepted because its denial is incompatible with the
scriptures. This is not to prove true, but to urge its
acceptance by that particular individual because of his
special circumstance, in this case his religious affiliation.
Such arguments are not really to the point; they do not
present good grounds for the truth of their conclusion but
are intended only to win assent to the conclusion from
one’s opponent because of his special circumstances.
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIUM ( Argument
from ignorance)
This fallacy is illustrated by the argument that there must
be ghosts because one has never been able to prove that
they aren’t any. It is committed whenever it is argued that
a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false. Or that it is false because it has not
been proved true. Our ignorance how to prove or
disapprove a proposition clearly does not establish either
the truth or falsehood of that proposition. This fallacy
often arises in connection with such matters as psychic
phenomena, telepathy, where there are no clear cut
evidence either or against.
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICODIUM (appeal to
pity)
This is a fallacy committed when pity is appealed to for
the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. This argument
is often encountered in the courts of law, when a defense
attorney may disregard the fact of the case and seek to
win his clients acquittal by arousing pity in the jury men.
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (Appeal to the
masses)
Sometimes it is defined as the fallacy committed in
directing an emotional appeal to the people orto the
gallery to win their assent to conclusion unsupported by
good evidence. That is an attempt to win their assent to a
conclusion by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the
multitude. This is a favorite with the propagandists and
the demagogue and the advertiser.

Argumentum ad Verecudiam( appeal to authority)

This is appeal to authority- that is, to the feelings of
respect people have for the famous- to win assent to a
conclusion. This method of argument is not always
fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the
special field of his competence may carry great weight
and constitute relevant evidence. But when authority is
appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province
of his special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of
argumentum ad verecudiam. If an argument over religion
one of the disputants appeals to the opinion of Charles
Darwin, the appeal is fallacious.

Accident
The fallacy of accident consists in applying a general rule
to a particular case whose accidental circumstances render
the rule inapplicable. What is true in general may not be
true universally and without qualification because
circumstances alter cases. Many generalizations known or
suspected to have exceptions are stated without
qualifications either because the exact cause conditions
restricting their applicability are not known or because the
accidental of such circumstances render them inapplicable
occur so seldom as to be practically negligible. When
such a generalization is appealed to in arguing about a
particular case whose accidental circumstances prevent
the general proposition from applying, the argument is
said to commit the fallacy of accident.
Property should be returned to its rightful owner, that
drunken sailor who is starting a fight with the opponent at
the pool table kept his pistol with you and now he wants it
back, so you should return it to him. (Nyarwath, 151)
Converse accident (Hasty Generalization)
In seeking to understand and characterize all cases of a
certain kind, one can pay attention to only some of them.
But those examined must be typical rather than atypical.
If one considers only exceptional cases and hastily
generalizes to a rule that fits them alone, the fallacy of
converse accident has been committed. For example
considering the effects of alcohol only on those who
indulge in its to excess, one may conclude that all liquor
is harmful and urge that law should forbid. Such thinking
is erroneous.
False Cause
This means to mistake what is not the cause of a given
effect for its real cause. The mere fact of coincidence of
temporal succession does not establish any causal
connection. Certainly we reject the claim that beating the
drums is the cause of the sun’s reappearance after the
eclipse, even though one can offer as the evidence the fact
that every time drums have been beaten during an eclipse,
the sun has reappeared.
PetitioPrincipi (begging the question)
In attempting to establish the truth of a proposition, one
often casts about for acceptable premises from which the
proposition in question can be deduced as a conclusion. If
he assumes as a premise for his argument the very
conclusion he intends to prove, the fallacy committed is
that of petition principi or begging the question.If John
did not steal my book. Who did it?
Complex question
 It is obvious that there is something funny about question
like have you given up your evil ways? Or have you
stopped battling your wife? These are not simple
questions to which a straight forward yes or no answer is
appropriate. Such questions presuppose that a definitive
answer has already been given to a prior question that was
not even asked. This is a complex question. Complex
questions are not confined to obvious jokes like those
above, in cross examination a lawyer may ask complex
questions to a witness to confuse or even to incriminate
him. He may ask “where did you hide the evidence? In
all such cases the intelligent procedure is to treat the
complex question not as a simple one, but to analyze it
into its components parts.

IgnorantioElenchi(irrelevant questions)
It is a legal phrase; for alenchusin Greek law was the
refutation of the charge. Ignoratioalenchi means ignoring
the charge to be refuted. This fallacy is committed when
an argument purporting to establish a particular
conclusion is directed to proving a different conclusion.
For example, when a particular proposal for housing
legislation is under consideration, a legislator may rise
and speak in favor of the bill and argue that only decent
housing for all the people is desirable. His remarks are
then logically irrelevant to the point at issue, for the
question concerns the particular measure at hand.
Presumably everyone agrees that decent housing for all
the people is desirable. The question is: will this particular
measure provide it better that any practical alternative?
The speaker’s argument is fallacious, for it commits the
fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
The informal fallacies have traditionally been called
fallacies of ambinguity or “fallacies of clearness”. They
occur in arguments whose formulations contain
ambiguous words or phrases whose meaning change more
or less subtly in the course of the argument and thus
render it fallacious.
Equivocation
Most words have more than one literal meaning, as the
word pen may denote either an instrument for writing or
an enclosure for animals. When we keep these two
meanings apart, no difficult arises. But when we confuse
the different meanings a single word or phrase may have,
using it in different senses in the same context, we are
using it equivocally.
 A traditional example of this fallacy is: the end of a thing
is its perfection; death is the end of life; hence death is the
perfection of life. This argument is fallacious because the
two different senses of the word end are confused in it.
The word end may mean either goal or last event.
The premises are plausible only when the word end is
interpreted differently in each of them as the goal of a
thing is its perfection and death is the last event of life.
Amphiboly
This is a fallacy that occurs in arguing from premises
whose formulations are ambinguous because of their
grammatical construction. A statement is amphibolous
when its meaning is determined because of the loose or
awkward way in which its words are combined. An
amphimbolous statement can true on one interpretation
and false on another. When it is stated as the premise with
the interpretation which makes it true and the conclusion
is drawn from it on the interpretation which makes it false
then the fallacy of amphiboly has been committed.
Amphiboly is often exhibited by newspaper headings and
briefs as in the farmer blew out his brain after the
affectionate farewell of his family with his short gun.

Accent
This is committed in an argument whose deceptive but
invalid in nature depends upon or shift in meaning. The
way in which meaning shifts depends upon what part of it
may be emphasized or accented. Some statements have
quite different meaning when different words are stressed.

Composition
Fallacy of composition is applied to both of two closely
related types of invalid arguments the first may be
described as reasoning fallaciously from properties of the
parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself. For
example, arguing that since every part of a particular
machine is light in weight, the machine as a whole is light
in weight.
Another way is reasoning from properties possessed by
individual elements or members to properties possessed
by the collection or totality of those elements.
For example, it is fallacious to argue that because buses
uses more gasoline than out-mobile therefore all buses use
more gasoline that all automobile. This turns on confusion
between the distributive and collective use of general
terms.
Division
It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It is of two
varieties; first kind consists in arguing that what is true of
the whole must also be true of the parts. To argue that a
certain corporation is very important and Mr. Theuri is an
official of that corporation, therefore Theuri is very
important, is to commit the fallacy of division.
The second type of division fallacy is committed when
one argues that from properties of elements themselves.
To argue that since the university students study
medicine, law engineering, dentistry and architecture
therefore each or even, any student study them would be
to commit the fallacy of division.
The difference between the fallacy of division and that of
accident is that, the latter argues that since most members
of a class have specified property therefore any member
of subclass of members, no matter how typical, must have
that property also. But in the fallacy of division one
argues that since a class itself (collectively) has a
specified property therefore any member or class of
members of the class must have property also.

Avoiding fallacies
Fallacies are pit falls in which any of us may stumble in
our reasoning. There is no sure way to avoid fallacies. To
avoid fallacies of relevance requires constant vigilance
and awareness of the many ways in which irrelevance and
awareness of the many ways in which irrelevance may
intrude. The realization of the flexibility of language and
the multiplicity of its uses will keep us from mistaking
and exhortation to accept and approve a conclusion for an
argument designed to prove that conclusion.
The fallacies of ambinguity are subtle things. Words are
slippery and most of them have a variety of sense or
meaning. Where these deferent meanings are confused in
the formulation of an argument the reasoning is
fallacious. To avoid the various fallacies of ambinguity
we must have and keep the meanings of our terms clearly
in mind. One way to accomplish this by defining the key
terms that are used. Since shifts in meaning of terms can
make arguments fallacious and since ambinguity can be
avoided by careful definition of terms involved definition
is an important matter for the student in logic.

Impediments to critical thinking.

There are three fields within which we examine the
common obstacles namely:
 Examine the commonly understood and
philosophically accepted class and categories of
fallacies.
 Understand the application of certain cognitive biases
that exploit the blind spots of our mental
composition.
 Be cautious of the very deceptive conversational
gimmicks that from the surface value looks true,
convincing and yet flaws reason.

There are many obstacles that impede man from clear

thinking, some are purely derivatives of individuals’
mental laxity, paternalistic indoctrination, religious
dogmas and influence, peer group and social influence,
schooling environment and dictatorial tendencies
evident in proclivities systems. All these aspects are
summarized in what Francis Bacon, a British
philosopher referred as the idols.

Francis Bacon regarded his work on the interpretation

of nature: noun Orgunumas the key to the whole
project. The new method of induction. He claims that
his method will lead to indubitable conclusions as if by
machinery, and believes that the unfallen human mind
would naturally work in this way if it were not
corrupted by “idols” or false images which cause men
to see everything in relations to the universe. The
intellect he argued need to be purged by the practice of
true induction but in order to attain clarity of thought,
Bacon insists that the idols ( barriers to clear
thinking)should also be pointed out explicitly.
The starting point for Bacon’s procedure for arriving at
certain truths in nature is a survey of the inherent and
acquired defects of the sense and the mind, which such
a procedure must circumvent. And since there are some
predispositions of the mind which impede the mental
progress towards certain definition, we are better
advised by Bacon that we avoid them:
idols of the tribe
They are errors attributed to characteristics of human
itself, which taints perceptions, and encourages men to
form systems ex analogiahominis rather than ex
analogiauniversi- systems appearing consistent to the
human mind, rather than systems consistent with the
way things are in nature. The nature of the animal spirit
which pervades the human body itself distorts the
sensations recorded in the mind from external stimuli.
Even the simplest registering in the mind of a sense-
impression is produced by emotion of animal spirit
which therefore characterizes every mental action.

Idols of the Cave

They are errors arising from individual investigators
personal habits of mind and preferences. By favoring
one aspect of interpretation rather than others which are
equally probable, or over emphasizing a single
appealing insight, an investigator may misrepresent his
material and produce fallacious theories. Such errors
can only be avoided by regarding with deep suspicion
any interpretation of the data which is immediately and
strikingly appealing. Example is tendency of some
minds to pick out and emphasize the similarities
between individual occurrences, and others to pick to
stress the differences between superficially similar
instances

Idols of the market place

These are errors which are automatically introduced
into a discussion of natural phenomena if the
investigator accepts the received terminology and holds
to the basic classifications which are assumed in all
application of terms according to the common usage. It
is extremely difficult for an investigator to reorganize
and reclassify against the grains of existing theory,
since the common application of the terms
automatically upholds the prevailing set of opinions.
Bacon believed that his step by step procedure for
grouping observed instances provides a viable
alternative to the over hasty and distorted concept of
formation implicit in all ordinary language.

Idols of the theatre

Errors resulting from adoption of fully fledged and
fallacious systems offered as explanations for natural
processes, which persuade by their internal consistency.
These are not easy to eradicate, since they are external
in origin and appeal only in the same way that pleasing
and consistent fictions in literature are appealing.

Summary of idols

The four idols are:

1• class: "Idols of the Tribe" --“have their foundation in
human nature itself”
2• “Idols of the Cave" -- “common errors” of the
individual’s nature
3• “ Idols of the Marketplace" -- “arise from consort,
intercourse, commerce”
4• “ Idols of the Theater" -- “dogmatic belief” in
sensory illusions

Summary
Tribe --– ethnicity
“a false assertion that the sense of man is the
measure of all things.”
“measure of the individual” takes mistaken priority
over “the measure of the universe.”
familial values, sanguinary obligations, common
character flaws: “shared …human nature.”

Cave ––– egocentricity

“everyone has a cave or den of his own, which refracts
and discolors the light of nature.”
character
education
“authority of whom he esteems and admires.”
“the spirit of a man” … “full of perturbations, and
governed as it were by chance”
personal perspective narrows and ignores the wider
“common world” ; troglodyte (cave dweller)
individual hubris, specific character flaws, lack of
experience, breadth and exposure.

Marketplace –– social activity“formed by the

intercourse and association of men with each other…
for it is by discourse that men associate, and words are
imposed.” (false certainty)too great a dependence on
language creating shared illusions, ideas with a
currency all their own.

Theater –– dogmatism“All the received systems [of

thought -- schools of authorities] are but stage plays --
representing worlds of their own creation after an
unreal scenic fashion.”“system now in vogue”
conventionally widespread beliefs (false breadth)“or
only of the ancients sects and philosophies” customary
views (false longevity)“which by tradition, credulity,
and negligence, have come to be received.” ( false
depth)

Observations
After summarizing the faults which distinguish the
learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him
true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He
defined physics as the science of variable causes, and
metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this
definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is
clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor
the definition would have been reversed.

It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental

work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This
he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all
knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never
completed. He left enough, however, so that other men
could perfect the work.

The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the

genius of his own mind but the experiences which
result from full and distinguished living. The very
diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of
his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced
viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the
idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle.
From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from
Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was
an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn
enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired
merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its
use, which is intelligence. The principal end of
philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of
all learning is to be determined by its measure of
usefulness.

Bacon believed that the first step was to make a

comprehensive survey of that which is known, as
distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude
he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared
with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the
past through tradition. It may be accumulated and
augmented by observation, but it must be proved and
established by experimentation. No theory is important
until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up
the machinery of control which has since become
almost the fetish of science.

Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds

can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of
the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect
human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in
no way discounted the spiritual content in the world.
Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the
internal illumination of the consciousness, but this
illumination is not knowledge until, through
experimentation, the truth is physically established.

Conclusion
On the whole, Bacon’s attitude is that these errors are
best avoided, rather than corrected, since the
effectiveness of correction is not guaranteed. His
method aims at bypassing the most obvious sources of
distortion in perception and interpretation. The idols
therefore bear a relation to the inductive method.
Human beings are born with an innate curiosity and
sense of wonder, but these must be nurtured if they are
to survive. Most positive perceptions of human learning
capacities come from those who have worked with
children and adults in highly supportive and
individualized environment. To understand why college
students often exhibit less those encouraging levels of
interest, we need to look no further that two general
predispositions that many students bring with them
from previous socialization and schooling: an attitude
of intellectual passivity or disengagement and negative
preconceptions about academic disciplines.
Inherent structure of the traditional public school also
encourage intellectual caution and discourage reflective
thinking. It is difficult to nurture interests and
encourage attitudes of reflection when students are
never given enough time to become fully involved in
the subject.

PRINCIPLES OF CRITICAL THINKING

For many people, creativity is something reserved for
scientists or artists. But this is to ignore the fact that we
are faced with countless problems in our daily life, and
it is precisely creative thinking that helps us come up
with solutions to these problems. We need to make use
of our creativity whether we are thinking about how to
earn more money or how to make our loved ones
happier.
Many people also seem to think that creativity is a
matter of waiting for inspirations. How inspiring ideas
come about is however regarded as a rather mysterious
process, and it is just a fact that some people are more
creative than others. But it would be a mistake to think
that creativity is a passive state of mind. While it is true
that there is no special process for creativity, there are
thinking skills that can be taught and things one can do
to enhance one's creativity

Don’t mistake ignorance for perspective. Gather

complete information. One of the most important and
most violated principles of critical thinking is
thoroughness—that is, gathering all available facts on a
subject under scrutiny. Obviously thinking requires
facts; erroneous conclusions often stem from
inadequate factual knowledge.
Principles of Critical Thinking:
1. Gather complete information.
2. Understand and define all terms.
3. Question the methods by which the facts are derived.
4. Question the conclusions.
5. Look for hidden assumptions and biases.
6. Question the source of facts.
7. Don’t expect all of the answers.
8. Examine the big picture.
9. Examine multiple cause and effect.
10. Watch for thought stoppers.
11. Understand your own biases and values.

Skills in Critical Thinking

The list of core critical thinking skills includes
observation, interpretation, analysis, inference,
evaluation, and explanation. According to Reynolds
(2011), an individual or group engaged in strong way of
critical thinking gives due consideration to establish:
 Evidence through observation

 Context skills

 Relevant criteria for making the judgment well

 Applicable methods or techniques for forming the

judgment
 Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding

the problem and the question at hand

In addition to possessing strong critical-thinking skills,
one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions
using those skills. Critical thinking employs not only
logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity,
credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth,
breadth, significance, and fairness.

Importance of critical thinking in Youth Ministry

and Journalism
Critical thinking is an important element of all
professional fields and academic disciplines (by
referencing their respective sets of permissible
questions, evidence sources, criteria, etc.). Within the
framework of scientific skepticism, the process of
critical thinking involves the careful acquisition and
interpretation of information and use of it to reach a
well-justified conclusion. The concepts and principles
of critical thinking can be applied to any context or case
but only by reflecting upon the nature of that
application. Critical thinking forms, therefore, a system
of related, and overlapping, modes of thought such as
anthropological thinking, sociological thinking,
historical thinking, political thinking, psychological
thinking, philosophical thinking, mathematical
thinking, chemical thinking, biological thinking,
ecological thinking, legal thinking, ethical thinking,
musical thinking, thinking like a painter, sculptor,
engineer, business person, etc. In other words, though
critical thinking principles are universal, their
application to disciplines requires a process of
reflective contextualization.
Critical thinking is considered important in the
academic fields because it enables one to analyze,
evaluate, explain, and restructure their thinking, thereby
decreasing the risk of adopting, acting on, or thinking
with, a false belief.

However, even with knowledge of the methods of

logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes can happen due
to a thinker's inability to apply the methods or because
of character traits such as egocentrism. Critical thinking
includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda,
self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Given
research in cognitive psychology, some educators
believe that schools should focus on teaching their
students critical thinking skills and cultivation of
intellectual traits where by:

1. Critical thinking plays and important in social

changes- institution in any society- courts,
governments, schools, businesses- are products of
certain ways of thinking
2. Helps to uncover bias and prejudices
3. It is path to freedom from half- truths and deceptions
4. The willingness to change one point of view as we
continue to examine and reexamine idea that may
seem obvious. Such thinking takes time and the
willingness to say three subversive words, “ I don’t
know”
5. Underlies reading, writing, speaking and listening…
the basic elements of communication

 Recognize problems, to find workable means for

meeting those problems
 Understand the importance of prioritization and order
of precedence in problem solving
 Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
 Recognize unstated assumptions and values
 Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity,
and discernment
 Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate
arguments
 Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical

relationships between propositions

 Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations

 Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at

which one arrives

 Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of

wider experience
 Render accurate judgments about specific things and

qualities in everyday life

In sum:
"A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed
form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that
supports it and the further conclusions to which it tend