PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Question 1: Fundamental Reasoning Strategies

The text identifies three fundamental reasoning strategies that guide our approach to analyzing information: comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning. Each strategy plays a role in how we interpret data, form arguments, and draw conclusions in critical thinking contexts.

Question 2: Comparative Reasoning and Its Basis

Comparative reasoning involves a process of comparing two concepts or ideas to highlight similarities or differences. This form of reasoning helps individuals interpret information, draw inferences, and offer explanations. It fundamentally relies on critical thinking skills, allowing individuals to link familiar concepts with unfamiliar ones to enhance understanding.

Question 3: Evaluating Comparative Reasoning with Argumentation Tests

The textbook outlines four tests for evaluating arguments: truthfulness of premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. These tests, however, are not ideal for assessing comparative reasoning. For instance, using “true” or “false” as evaluative terms does not sufficiently clarify comparisons in the first test. The second test, which assesses similarities and dissimilarities, often presents conflicting cases, making it challenging to use effectively. The third test requires the maker of the analogy to clarify the comparison’s relevance, which is subjective. Lastly, in the fourth test, unfamiliar concepts complicate connecting premises to conclusions, as seen in comparisons like business and warfare, where the unfamiliarity of war among businesspeople hinders comprehension. Therefore, these tests fall short in evaluating comparative reasoning effectively.

Question 4: Criteria for Evaluating Comparative Reasoning

Five criteria are essential in evaluating comparative reasoning: familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, and testability. Familiarity refers to the listener’s knowledge level of the compared objects. Simplicity examines the complexity of the comparison, while comprehensiveness considers the comparison’s inclusion of key features. Productivity measures the comparison’s ability to generate new ideas, and testability refers to its capacity to predict outcomes that may be false.

Question 5: Importance of Key Similarities in Comparisons

The effectiveness of a comparison is largely determined by the strength of its key similarities. When similarities between two items are strong and persuasive, the credibility of the resulting conclusion is enhanced, as the comparison becomes more meaningful and relevant.

Question 6: Defining Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning is a logical approach based on evidence and observations. It involves using experiential premises to support or refute a hypothesis. This reasoning is inductive, self-corrective, and open to verification through independent scrutiny.

Question 7: Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning possesses three defining characteristics: it is inductive, self-corrective, and verifiable by independent sources, ensuring that conclusions drawn can be challenged and tested for accuracy.

Question 8: The Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is an empirical concept proposing that any observed association between two variables is purely coincidental. This hypothesis is foundational in statistical testing.

Question 9: Purpose of Empirical Reasoning

The primary goal of empirical reasoning is to provide explanations, make predictions, or control events by drawing on evidence-based premises.

Question 10: Evaluating Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning is evaluated using the four argumentation tests: truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. Independent verification, such as peer review, can further validate empirical findings.

Question 11: Addressing Logical Strength in Research Design

The research design phase that addresses logical strength involves data analysis and interpretation of findings. This stage provides grounds for making logical inferences regarding the hypothesis’s validity, ensuring a robust link between premises and conclusions.

Question 12: Purpose and Process of Peer Review

Peer review involves expert scrutiny of research, evaluating the validity of methods, ideas, and conclusions. Its primary goal is to ensure that published research meets established standards of credibility and rigor.

Question 13: Correlation and Causation in Critical Thinking Courses

While data supports a positive correlation between critical thinking courses and student skill development, this does not imply causation. Multiple factors may contribute to skill improvement, making it inappropriate to attribute causality to course participation alone.

Question 14: Caution in Assumptions About Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning, even if it appears rigorous, should not automatically be assumed to meet all evaluative criteria. Errors in peer review or statistical analysis can lead to the publication of flawed findings; therefore, caution is warranted.

PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology (7th ed.).