Name
Chamberlain University
PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning
Prof. Name
Date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The primary goal of empirical reasoning is to provide explanations, make predictions, or control events by drawing on evidence-based premises.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Questions | Responses | Additional Details |
---|---|---|
Fundamental Reasoning Strategies | Comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning | These strategies guide the interpretation and evaluation of arguments. |
Comparative Reasoning | Involves comparing concepts or ideas to draw conclusions | Based on critical thinking, allowing linkage between known and unknown elements. |
Evaluating Comparative Reasoning | Four tests (truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, non-circularity) are less effective for comparative reasoning | Each test encounters limitations due to the nature of comparative reasoning. |
Criteria for Comparative Reasoning | Familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, testability | These criteria ensure a more nuanced evaluation. |
Importance of Similarities | Strong key similarities enhance the relevance of comparisons | The credibility of conclusions depends on persuasive similarities. |
Empirical Reasoning | Reasoning based on observation and experience, used to test hypotheses | Involves inductive and self-corrective processes with independent verification. |
Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning | Inductive, self-corrective, open to verification | Ensures reliability through continuous examination. |
Null Hypothesis | Proposes that observed relationships are coincidental | Forms the basis of statistical testing in empirical research. |
Purpose of Empirical Reasoning | Explain, predict, or control events using evidence-based premises | Critical for drawing valid, actionable conclusions. |
Evaluating Empirical Reasoning | Four tests (truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, non-circularity) plus peer review | Independent review validates findings. |
Logical Strength in Research | Addressed in data analysis and interpretation stages | Links premises and conclusions with logical robustness. |
Peer Review Process | Expert evaluation of research for credibility | Screens out unsubstantiated research. |
Correlation and Causation | Positive correlation exists between critical thinking courses and skill growth, but causation is not established | External factors influence skill improvement. |
Caution in Empirical Reasoning Assumptions | Empirical rigor does not guarantee passing all evaluative criteria | Errors can occur even in peer-reviewed work. |
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology (7th ed.).
Have a question or need support? Connect with our team today. We’re ready to assist you with personalized guidance to help you achieve your academic goals. Reach out via email, phone, or our easy-to-use contact form.
612-217-0144
info@hireonlineclasshelp.com
Get expert assistance to excel in your courses with personalized support. Our creative approach ensures your academic success every step of the way.
Our Services