How it all came together
...he most common, is committed when the arguer assume without evidence that something happened because of something else using that as the sole source when other factors can be considered (2002). What is critical thinking? Taken from (Greek), critical- is to choose, to decide and thinking- is to contrive, to plan, to view, to imagine or to hold an opinion (Bateman, 2003). There are four components of critical thinking: 1. The study of logic, logic can be deductive or inductive, it basically depend on when one start to think; at the point of general principle or at the point of collected data. Critical thinking involves the formulation of thoughts and the alignment of thoughts into what we call correct reasoning. 2. Problem-solving observation, it you want to know how to do something right, follow the expert. If you want to do something wrong, following the one who never gets it right. When observing, one should keep in mind the following How it all comes together 3 questions and upon completion of the observation, you (the observer), will have a refined sense of critical thinking with problem-solving skills. A. How did you define the problem B. Where was the focus C. What are some alternative solutions D. What aspects was noted E. What resources were used F. What was the methods used 3. Reading and writing; knowledge is necessary for critical thinking, you can also develop general skills and skills of conceptual organization through reading books and articles. 4. Group discussion, these seem to be the best way to facilitate critical thinking. During these discussions, once you voice your opinion, fallacies in reasoning come out (Mckenzie, 1992). A critical thinker is also a human being and somewhat a risk taker, when discussions come up, a thinker always tend to voice own opinions depending on their own personal beliefs, these beliefs will then determine what logically fallacies the conversation will fall into. A critical thinker should also have the ability to reason correctly and try to identify any reasoning that are fallacies, this is why it is so important to know and understand the different fallacies that will interrupt the four components of critical thinking. How it all comes together 4 Using the six stages of decision making is a helpful tool to understand and overcome the fallacies of thinking. 1. Identifying and diagnosing the problem- first one must recognize there is a problem and decides that it needs to be solved and then be willing to do something about it. 2. Generating alternative solutions- this is where the problem is being linked to alternative course of actions. 3. Evaluating alternatives- rank the alternatives. 4. Making a choice by using maximizing (best outcome), satisfying (acceptable), and optimizing (best balanced). 5. Implement the decision- carry out the choice you have made. 6. Evaluate the decision- collect data of how well the choice you made worked (Bateman, 2003). According to Rudolph (1992), he includes that one should also consider using these six key phrases to assist you so you won’t fall in the notion of fallacies: 1. So as far as I know 2. Up to a point 3. To me 4. What 5. When 6. Where. How it all comes together 5 Organizational examples Attacking the person Military, there are many people in my organization who have very strong opinions about the war on Iraq. Periodically we like to have group discussions on different situations about the world. The war on Iraq is always the conversation that comes up. As always when the discussions begin, so do the attacks. A certain group of individuals can give their opinions about the war and give good facts and knowledge based on research, and the others in the group disagree to disagree. As the others start to give their opinions, they are basically arguing the same things but just don’t realize it. When I asked what the issue is, I notice the attack wasn’t on the notion of the war and the facts; the disagreement was based on people’s religion beliefs and had nothing to do with the facts of why we should or should not be over in Iraq. Here I believe is where the fallacy of attacking the person falls, because they are attacking the person who is arguing, not the argument at hand. In the article written by Arillo (2003), he discusses attacking the person; his example is on politicians, if you ever watched a debate, you will notice that whoever is debating they tend to attack to person not the issue. Inconsistency Inconsistency is very common in the military, if a female soldier feel she isn’t being treated equal to a male soldier at her pay grade, arguments start. Some female soldiers believe male soldiers get more leadership positions, better school options and more awards. The arguments can start off simple and by the end of the day be very How it all comes together 6 complexed. Being in a leadership position, you try to make sure there is no favoritism shown and you go back and reevaluate all situations and you see other leadership positions coming open ...