The sun always goes down in the night,"Analogizing" why does the apple always fall
to the earth ??
Are there any Rival Causes ?
A " Rival Causes " is a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain
outcome occurred.
Let's begin with a story.
An inquisitive boy noticed that the sun would show up in the sky in the morning and disappear in the night. Puzzled by where the sun went, the boy tried to watch the sunset really closely. However, he still could not figure out where the sun was going. then the boy also noticed that his babysitter showed up in the mornings and left in the night. One day he asked his babysitter where she went at night. The babysitter responded, " I go home ". Linking his babysitter's arrival and departure with the coming of day and night, he concluded that his babysitter's leaving, causing the sun to also go home.
This story illustrates a common difficulty in the use of evidence :
" Try to figure out what caused something to happen ".
We cannot determine an intelligence approach to avoiding a problem or encouraging a particular outcome until we understand the causal pattern that gave rise to the phenomenon in the first place. For example, we want to know what caused the steady rise in oil prices in the United States over the last few years. Or, why the unemployment rate increased over the subprime mortgage crisis ??
The fictional little boy offered one interpretation of his observations : the sun sets at night because my babysitter goes home. We expect that you can see another plausible explanation for why the sun sets.
Although " Rival Causes " will rarely be as obvious as they are in our story, you will frequently
encounter experts presenting one hypothesis to explain events or research findings when other
plausible hypotheses could also explain them. Usually, these experts will not reveal " Rival Causes " to you because they do not want do detract from the sound of certainty associated with their claims; you will have produce them. Doing so can be especially helpful as you decide
" How Good is the Evidence ? " The existence of multiple, plausible rival causes for events reduces our confidence in the cause originally offered by the author.
Searching for " Rival Causes " will always be appropriate when a speak or writer presents you with some evidence and offers a cause to explain it.
X has the effect of ... X deters ...
X leads to ... X increases the likelihood ...
X influences ... X determines ...
X is a factors in ... X contributes to ...
X is linked to ... X is associated with ...
Since 1993, the level of serious violent crime in the United States have decreased steadily. It is
obvious that the heavy focus we place on the law enforcement is no longer necessary. People are becoming civic minded and are choosing no longer pursue a life of crime. Money spent on law enforcement can now better be spent elsewhere.
- Violent rated have been decreased because of increased focused on law enforcement the writer is especially calling to be cut. An increased concern with law enforcement, and not the civic concerns of citizens, caused violent crime levels to decrease.
- Recent legislative actions have increased the punishments associated with violent crimes.These increased punishments make the cost of committing a violent crime far outweigh the benefits of committing violent crimes. People are not more civic minded, rather they are looking out for their own personal interests.
- The booming economy in the 1990s could have decreased the number of people in poverty. Given that the poor are typically the perpetrators of what we call violent crimes, fewer poor people would lower the lower crime people.
- Causal Oversimplification : Examining an event by relying on casual factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.
Scientific research attempts to isolate some of the most important contributing causes from other extraneous causes and provides a major source of hypotheses about what causes events in our world. Researchers start with tentative beliefs -- hypotheses -- about causes of events.
For example, when a massive killed thousands of people, researchers generated many hypotheses about the cause of tsunami. One hypothesis was that tsunamis are caused by massive under water earthquakes. Once a hypothesis has been firmly established by dependable research evidence, it changes from a hypothesis to a law. In the domain of complex human behavior, however, there are very few established general laws.
Then, what should you do when speakers or writers use findings from research studies to conclude that one event causes another ?? First, remember that their conclusion should be viewed as a cause, not, the cause. Then, try to find out as much as you can about the research procedures used to produce the findings that support the hypothesis. Finally, try to determine the " Rival Causes " that might explain the findings. The more plausible rival causes that can account for the findings, the less faith you should have in the hypothesis favored by the communicator.
Rival Causes for Different Groups
One of the most common ways for researchers to try to find a cause for some event is to
" Compare Groups ". For example, you will frequently encounter the following kinds of references to group comparisons :
* Researchers compared an experimental group to a control group.
* One group received treatment X; the other group didn't.
* A group with learning disabilities and a group without learning disabilities.
Are there Rival Causes ??
While an author might offer an explanation for why certain events occurred, other explanations
might be plausible. When you try to identify rival causes, you are finding alternative explanations for an event. If you can identify alternative explanations, you must decide whether you should
believe the author's explanation or one of the other explanations. If the author does not provide
reasons for why you should accept her explanation over other explanations, you should not be willing to accept her explanations and, ultimately, her conclusion. Thus, looking for rival causes is another step in deciding whether to accept or reject an argument.
What Significant Information is Omitted ??
Constructing...
Final Word :
Critical thinking is a tool. It does something for you. In serving this function for you, critical thinking can perform well or not so well.
The Tone of Your Critical Thinking
As the critical thinker, you have the capability to come across like an annoying warrior, constantly
watching for ways to slay those who stray from careful reasoning. But learning is, in important ways, a social activity. We need one another for development; we need one another to share conversation and debate. None of us is so gifted that we can stand alone in the face of the complexities we encounter. Critical thinking can make you more self-reliant if you use it to improve your own decision-making.
Hence, critical thinkers need to think about what they are giving off when they use their critical
thinking. When you use your critical thinking, you are sending some kind of message to others about what critical thinking means to you. This message will be especially effective when it combines the curiosity and excitement of the child with the skeptical nature of our best scientists, all moderated by the humility of a monk. Your critical thinking then is on display as a pathway to better conclusions. You seek those conclusions not to elevated yourself above those who have other conclusions, but to move us all forward toward some better understanding of who we are. And all the while, you will be improving yourself as a thinker.
Criticism is always a tricky business. In many families and schools, disagreement is identified with meanness. In these settings, the preferred social role is smiling agreement with whatever reasoning is announced. As a critical thinker, you must consider the stark sound of your critical questions in such a context and work self-consciously to make certain that your critical thinking is seen in its best light.
Your best strategy is to present yourself as someone, who like the person who made the argument in the first place is stumbling around, but always watchful for better conclusions. Openness is the central value of a critical thinker, and you show that openness by your eagerness to listen and discover. Whoever finds the better conclusion first is not relevant; what is important is the search for the better conclusions. if you give signals to those trying to persuade you that you are their partner in a discovery process intended to enrich you both, they may see your critical questions as a tool that is indispensable to both of you.
Strategy for Effective Critical Thinking
- Be certain to demonstrate that you really want to grasp what is being said. Ask questions that indicate your willingness to grasp and accept new conclusions.
- Restated what you heard or read and ask whether your understanding of the argument is consistent with what was written and spoken.
- Voice your critical questions as if you are curious. Nothing is more deadly to the effective use of critical thinking than an attitude of " Aha, I caught you making an error. "
- Request additional reasons that might enable the person to make a stronger argument than the one originally provided.
No comments:
Post a Comment