Asking the right question标注

1. We are definitely not saying that experts cannot be helpful. Indeed, we cannot function without depending on people who we think might have knowledge we can use. In a sense, we are encouraging you to pay even more attention to experts than you might already give them. But, as will be clear soon, we need to listen to experts of many different kinds, sorting and discarding as we listen and evaluate. We listen to them to construct our answer. We do not listen to them to follow their advice, as if we were but a helpless lamb or a puppet on the expert’s string.

2.Critical thinking, as we will use the term, refers to the following: 1. awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions; 2. ability to ask and answer these critical questions in an appropriate manner; and 3. desire to actively use the critical questions.

4. We think you would rather choose for yourself what to absorb and what to ignore. To make this choice, you must read with a special attitude—a questionasking attitude. Such a thinking style requires active participation. The writer is trying to speak to you, and you should try to talk back to him, even though he is not physically present.

5. We think you would rather choose for yourself what to absorb and what to ignore. To make this choice, you must read with a special attitude—a questionasking attitude. Such a thinking style requires active participation. The writer is trying to speak to you, and you should try to talk back to him, even though he is not physically present. We call this interactive approach the panning-for-gold style of thinking.

6. The most important characteristic of the panning-for-gold approach is interactive involvement—a dialogue between the writer and the reader, or the speaker and the listener. As a critical thinker, you are willing to agree with others, but first you need some convincing answers to your questions. Did I ask “why” someone wants me to believe something? Did I take notes as I thought about potential problems with what was being said? Did I evaluate what was being said? Did I form my own conclusion about the topic based on the reasonableness of what was said?

7. We bring lots of personal baggage to every decision we make -- experiences, dreams, values, training, and cultural habits. However, if you are to grow, you need to recognize these feelings, and, as much as you are able, put them on a shelf for a bit. Only that effort will enable you to listen carefully when others offer arguments that threaten or violate your current beliefs. This openness is important because many of our own positions on issues are not especially reasonable ones; they are opinions given to us by others, and over many years we develop emotional attachments to them. Indeed, we frequently believe that we are being personally attacked when someone presents a conclusion contrary to our own. The danger of being emotionally involved in an issue is that you may fail to consider potential good reasons for other positions -- reasons that might be sufficient to change your mind on the issue if only you would listen to them.

8. To give you an initial sense of the skills that Asking the Right Questions will help you acquire, we will list the critical questions for you here. By the end of the book, you should know when and how to ask these questions productively: What are the issues and the conclusions? What are the reasons? Which words or phrases are ambiguous? What are the value conflicts and assumptions? What are the descriptive assumptions? Are there any fallacies in the reasoning? How good is the evidence? Are there rival causes? Are the statistics deceptive? What significant information is omitted? What reasonable conclusions are possible?

9. Such issues are descriptive issues. They are commonly found in textbooks, magazines, the Internet, and television. Such issues reflect our curiosity about patterns or order in the world. Note the boldfaced words that begin each question above; when questions begin with these words, they will probably be descriptive questions.

10. All these questions have one thing in common. They demand answers attempting to describe the way the world is, was, or is going to be. For example, answers to the first two questions might be, "In general, families with pets have fewer arguments with one another," and "Poor dietary habits cause high blood pressure." Such issues are descriptive issues. They are commonly found in textbooks, magazines, the Internet, and television. Such issues reflect our curiosity about patterns or order in the world. Note the boldfaced words that begin each question above; when questions begin with these words, they will probably be descriptive questions.

    5. All of these questions demand answers suggesting the way the world ought to be. For example, answers to the first two questions might be, "Capital punishment should be abolished," and "We aught to increase social security benefits." These issues are ethical, or moral, issues; they raise questions about what is right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, good or bad. They demand prescriptive answers. Thus, we will refer to these issues as prescriptive issues. Social controversies are often prescriptive issues.

11. Conclusions are inferred; they are derived from reasoning. Conclusions are ideas that require other ideas to support them. Thus, whenever someone claims something is true or ought to be done and provides no statements to support her claim, that claim is not a conclusion because no one has offered any basis for belief. In contrast, unsupported claims are what we refer to as mere opinions.

    7. Before you can evaluate an author's argument, you must clearly identify the issue and conclusion. How can you evaluate an argument if you don't know exactly what the author is trying to persuade you to believe? Finding an author's main point is the first step in deciding whether you will accept or reject it.
    8. An argument is a combination of two forms of statements: a conclusion and the reasons allegedly supporting it. The partnership between reasons and conclusion establishes a person's argument.

12. Communicators appeal to many kinds of evidence to "prove their point." These include "the facts," research findings, examples from real life, statistics, appeals to experts and authorities, personal testimonials, metaphors, and analogies.

13. Communicators appeal to many kinds of evidence to "prove their point." These include "the facts," research findings, examples from real life, statistics, appeals to experts and authorities, personal testimonials, metaphors, and analogies.

11. Resist the temptation to make note of the unclear meaning of any and all words. Only the ambiguity in the reasoning is crucial to critical thinkers.

12. Critical thinkers believe that autonomy, curiosity, and reasonableness are among the most important of human objectives.

    13. Assumptions are: hidden or unstated (in most cases); taken for granted; influential in determining the conclusion; and potentially deceptive.

13. In particular, there are two places to look for assumptions. Look for assumptions needed for the reason (s) to support the conclusions (linkage assumptions) and look for ones necessary for a reason to be true. We first introduce you to assumptions that are extremely influential in prescriptive arguments—value assumptions. Look for value assumptions in the movement from reasons to conclusion!

14. Value assumptions are very important assumptions for such arguments because they are directing the reasoning from behind a screen. The person trying to communicate with you may or may not be aware of these assumptions. You should make it a habit to identify the value assumptions on which the reasons are based.

15. Value assumptions are very important assumptions for such arguments because they are directing the reasoning from behind a screen. The person trying to communicate with you may or may not be aware of these assumptions. You should make it a habit to identify the value assumptions on which the reasons are based. By value assumption, we mean a taken-for-granted belief about the relative desirability of certain competing values. When authors take a position on a social controversy, they typically prefer one value over another value—they have value priorities or preferences. The rest of this chapter is devoted to increasing your awareness of the role played by value conflicts and value priorities in determining a person's opinions or conclusions. This awareness will help you locate and evaluate this important type of assumption.

16. Before you can discover the importance of values in shaping conclusions, you must have some understanding of what a value is. Values, as we will use the term, are ideas that someone thinks are worthwhile. You will find that it is the importance one assigns to abstract ideas that has the major influence on one's choices and behavior.

17. Values, as we will use the term, are ideas that someone thinks are worthwhile. You will find that it is the importance one assigns to abstract ideas that has the major influence on one's choices and behavior.

18. When we use the word value in this chapter, we will be referring to an (abstract) idea representing what someone thinks is important and good.

19. Values are standards of conduct that we endorse and expect people to meet. When we expect our political representatives to "tell the truth," we are indicating to them and to ourselves that honesty is one of our most cherished values. Ask yourself what you expect your friends to be like. What standards of conduct would you want your children to develop? Answers to these questions should help you enlarge your understanding of values.

20. When a writer takes a stand on controversial prescriptive issues, she is usually depreciating one commonly shared value while upholding another.

21. Look again at the definition, and you will immediately see that, by definition, most values will be on everyone's list. Because many values are shared, values by themselves are not a powerful guide to understanding. What leads you to answer a prescriptive question differently from someone else is the relative intensity with which you hold specific values.

22. A writer's preference for particular values is often unstated, but that value preference, nevertheless, will have a major impact on her conclusion and on how she chooses to defend it. These unstated assertions about value priorities function as value assumptions. Some refer to these assumptions as value judgments. Recognition of relative support for conflicting values or sets of values provides you with both an improved understanding of what you are reading and a basis for eventual evaluation of prescriptive arguments.

23. When a writer takes a stand on controversial prescriptive issues, she is usually depreciating one commonly shared value while upholding another.

    25. A writer's preference for particular values is often unstated, but that value preference, nevertheless, will have a major impact on her conclusion and on how she chooses to defend it. These unstated assertions about value priorities function as value assumptions. Some refer to these assumptions as value judgments. Recognition of relative support for conflicting values or sets of values provides you with both an improved understanding of what you are reading and a basis for eventual evaluation of prescriptive arguments. When a writer takes a stand on controversial prescriptive issues, she is usually depreciating one commonly shared value while upholding another.

24. So when you look for value assumptions, look for an indication of value priorities. Ask yourself what values are being upheld by this position and what values are being relatively downgraded in importance.

25. When evaluating a controversy, try to find several value conflicts, as a check on yourself. Some controversies will have one primary value conflict; others may have several.

26. Remember, when someone takes a position on a controversial topic, she will be revealing a value priority—a preference for one value over another.

27. Finally, you can always check to see whether the disagreement results from a value conflict concerning the rights of an individual to behave in a particular fashion and the welfare of the group affected by the behavior in question. Many arguments rest implicitly on a stance with respect to this enduring value conflict.

    30. Once you have identified the connecting assumptions, you have answered the question, "On what basis can that conclusion be drawn from that reason?" The next natural step is to ask, "Is there any basis for accepting the assumptions?" If not, then, for you, the reason fails to provide support for the conclusion. If so, then the reason provides logical support for the conclusion.

28. When you identify descriptive assumptions, you are identifying the link between a reason and the author's conclusion. If this link is flawed, the reason does not necessarily lead to the conclusion.

29. When you identify descriptive assumptions, you are identifying the link between a reason and the author's conclusion. If this link is flawed, the reason does not necessarily lead to the conclusion. Consequently, identifying the descriptive assumptions allows you to determine whether an author's reasons lead to a conclusion. You will want to accept a conclusion only when there are good reasons that lead to the conclusion. Thus, when you determine that the link between the reasons and conclusion is flawed, you will want to be reluctant to accept the author's conclusion.

30. We call this fallacy the searching for perfect solutions fallacy. It takes the form: A solution to X does not deserve our support unless it destroys the problem entirely. If we ever find a perfect solution, then we should adopt it. But because the fact that part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried does not mean the solution is unwise. A particular solution may be vastly superior to no solution at all. It may move us closer to solving the problem completely.

31. To prove that medical marijuana is desirable, she appeals to questionable authorities—a California Association. A position is not good just because the authorities are for it. What is important in determining the relevance of such reasoning is the evidence that the authorities are using in making their judgment. Unless we know that these authorities have special knowledge about this issue, we must treat this reason as a fallacy. Such a fallacy is called the Appeal to Questionable Authority fallacy.

32. The writer has tricked us in another way. She states that the program will "tear them from their families and mothers," and the children will be "pawns in a universal scheme." Of course, nobody wants these things to happen to their children. However, the important question is whether in fact the bill will do these things. Not likely!

33. Always be cautious when controversies are treated as if only two choices are possible; there are usually more than two. When a communicator oversimplifies an issue by stating only two choices, the error is referred to as an either-or or false dilemma fallacy. To find either-or fallacies, be on the alert for phrases like the following: either ... or the only alternative is the two choices are because A has not worked, only B will.

34. When reasoning requires us to assume incorrectly that what we think should be matches what is, or what will be, it commits the wishful thinking fallacy. We would hope that what should be the case would guide our behavior.

35. Sounds like Ms. Goodheart is a wonderful person, doesn't it? But the speech fails to provide any specifics about the senator's past record or present position on issues. Instead, it presents a series of virtue words that tend to be associated with deep-seated positive emotions. We call these virtue words "Glittering Generalities," because they have such positive associations and are so general as to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. The Glittering Generality device leads us to approve or accept a conclusion without examining relevant reasons, evidence, or specific advantages or disadvantages. The Glittering Generality is much like name-calling in reverse because name-calling seeks to make us form a negative judgment without examining the evidence.

36. What is the real issue? Is the public being misled about the safety of pain-killer drugs? But if the reader is not careful, his attention will be diverted to the issue of whether the public wants to use these drugs.

37. What is the real issue? Is the public being misled about the safety of pain-killer drugs? But if the reader is not careful, his attention will be diverted to the issue of whether the public wants to use these drugs. When a writer or speaker shifts our attention from the issue, we can say that she has drawn a red herring

38. It is obvious that he is yet another victim of the AIDS hysteria sweeping the nation.

39. Sex education exclusive of the family is stripped of values or any sense of morality, and should thus be discouraged. For years families have taken the responsibility of sex education, and that's the way it should remain.

40. Sex education in schools encourages experimentation. Kids are curious. Letting them in on the secret of sex at such a young age will promote blatant promiscuity. Frank discussions of sex are embarrassing for children, and they destroy the natural modesty

41. The surgeon general's recommendation removes the role of the family entirely. It should be up to parents to explain sex to their children in a manner with which they are comfortable.

42. Only recently has sex education been forced on young children. The surgeon general's recommendation removes the role of the family entirely. It should be up to parents to explain sex to their children in a manner with which they are comfortable.

43. Because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the absolute truth or falsity of most claims, rather than ask whether they are true, we prefer to ask whether they are dependable.

    62. Because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the absolute truth or falsity of most claims, rather than ask whether they are true, we prefer to ask whether they are dependable. In essence, we want to ask, "Can we count on such beliefs?" The greater the quality and quantity of evidence supporting a claim, the more we can depend on it, and the more we can call the claim a "fact."

63. The major difference between claims that are opinions and those that are facts is the present state of the relevant evidence. The more supporting evidence there is for a belief, the more "factual" the belief becomes.

64. When we use intuition to support a claim, we rely on "common sense," or on our "gut feelings," or on hunches. When a communicator supports a claim by saying "common sense tells us" or "I just know that it's true," she is using intuition as her evidence.

    65. personal experiences often lead us to commit the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

65. Hasty Generalization Fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.

    67. Commercials, ads for movies, recommendations on the backs of book jackets, and "proofs" of the existence of the paranormal or other controversial or extraordinary life events often try to persuade by using a special kind of appeal to personal experience; they quote particular persons as saying that a given idea or product is good or bad, or that extraordinary events have occurred, based upon their personal experiences. Such quoted statements serve as personal testimonials.

66. the people who provide the testimonials have often been selective in their attention, paying special attention to information that confirms their beliefs and ignoring discontinuing information. Often, believing is seeing! Our expectancies greatly influence how we experience events. If we believe that aliens live among us, or that humans never really landed on the moon, then we are more likely to see ambiguous images as aliens or as proof of the government conspiracy regarding the moon landing.

67. we need to ask, "Does the person providing the testimony have a relationship with what he is advocating such that we can expect a strong bias in his testimony?"

68. You should remember, that for many reasons, authorities are often wrong. Also, they often disagree. The following examples, taken from T_he Experts Speak_, are clear reminders of the fallibility of expert opinion

69. These quotes should remind us that we need to ask critical questions when communicators appeal to authority. We need to ask, " Why should we believe this authority?" More specifically, we should ask the following questions of authorities. How much expertise or training does the authority have about the subject about which he is communicating? Is this a topic the person has studied for a long time? Or, has the person had extensive experience related to the topic?

    72. In general, you should be more impressed by primary sources—or direct observers— than by secondary sources, those who are relying on others for their evidence. Time and Newsweek, for example, are secondary sources, while research journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association are primary sources.

70. factors that can influence how evidence is reported are personal needs, prior expectations, general beliefs, attitudes, values, theories, and ideologies. These can subconsciously or deliberately affect how evidence is presented. For example, if a public university president is asked whether cuts in funding for education are bad for the university, he will in all probability answer "yes" and give a number of good reasons. He may be giving an unbiased view of the situation. Because of his position, however, we would want to be concerned about the possibility that he has sought out only those reasons that justify his own biases.

71. We can, however, expect less bias from some authorities than from others and try to determine such bias by seeking information about the authority's personal interest in the topic. For example, we want to be especially wary when an authority stands to benefit financially from the actions she advocates.

    75. Because an authority can have a personal interest in an issue and still make dependable claims, we should not reject a claim simply because we suspect that the authority's personal interests may interfere with her fairness. One helpful step we can take is to check to see whether authorities with diverse attitudes, prior expectations, values, and interests agree. Thus we need to ask the questions: "Has the authority developed a reputation for frequently making dependable claims? Have we been able to rely on this authority in the past?"

72. You will want to be especially concerned about the quality of authorities when you encounter factual claims on the Internet. When we go on-line, virtually everyone becomes an "authority," because people are free to claim whatever they wish, and there is no built-in process to evaluate such claims. It is clearly a "buyers beware" situation!

73. difficulty with personal observation, however, is the tendency to see or hear what we wish to see or hear, selecting and remembering those aspects of an experience that are most consistent with our previous experience and background.

78. While personal observations can often be valuable sources of evidence, we need to recognize that they are not unbiased "mirrors of reality"; and when they are used to support controversial conclusions, we should seek verification by other observers as well as other kinds of evidence to support the conclusion.

79. Also, remember that observational reports get increasingly problematic as the time between the observation and the report of the observation increases.

80. When reports of observations in newspapers, magazines, books, television, and the Internet are used as evidence, you need to determine whether there are good reasons to rely on such reports. The most reliable reports will be based on recent observations made by several people observing under optimal conditions who have no apparent, strong expectations or biases related to the event being observed.

81. Research varies greatly in quality, we should rely more on some research studies than others. There is well-done research and there is poorly done research, and we should rely more on the former.

82. Research findings do not prove conclusions. At best, they support conclusions. Research findings do not speak for themselves! Researchers must always interpret the meaning of their findings, and all findings can be interpreted in more than one way. Thus, researchers' conclusions should not be treated as demonstrated "truths." When you encounter statements such as "research findings show..." you should retranslate them into "researchers interpret their research findings as showing ..."

83. Case examples are often compelling to us because of their colorfulness and their interesting details, which make them easy to visualize. Political candidates have increasingly resorted to case examples in their speeches, knowing that the rich details of cases generate an emotional reaction. Such cases, however, should be viewed more as striking examples or anecdotes than as proof, and we must be very suspicious of their use as evidence.

84. Although case examples will be consistent with a conclusion, do not let that consistency fool you. Always ask yourself: "Is the example typical?" "Are there powerful counterexamples?" "Are there biases in how the example is reported?"

85. It is especially important to identify analogies when they are used to set the tone of the conversation. Such analogies are used to "frame" an argument. To identify framing analogies, look for comparisons that are used to not only explain a point, but also to influence the direction a discussion will take.

86. You can almost always find some similarities between any two things. So, analogical reasoning will not be persuasive simply because of many similarities. Strong analogies will be ones in which the two things we compare possess relevant similarities and lack relevant differences.

87. Critical Question: Are there rival causes? Attention: A rival cause is a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occurred.

88. You need to look for rival causes when you have good reason to believe that the writer or speaker is using evidence to support a claim about the cause of something.

89. The experts may claim to have the answer, but they are not likely to know it. That is because a frequently made error is to look for a simple, single cause of an event when it is really the result of a combination of many contributory causes— a cause that helps to create a total set of conditions necessary for the event to occur.

90. Multiple contributory causes occur more often than do single causes in situations involving the characteristics or activities of humans. In many cases, the best causal explanation is one that combines a considerable number of causes that only together are sufficient to bring about the event.

91. Multiple contributory causes occur more often than do single causes in situations involving the characteristics or activities of humans. In many cases, the best causal explanation is one that combines a considerable number of causes that only together are sufficient to bring about the event. So, the best answer experts can give to the talk show hosts' question is "We don't know the cause for such events, but we can speculate about possible causes that might have contributed to the event." Thus, when we are searching for rival causes, we need to remember that any single cause that we identify is much more likely to be a contributory cause than the cause.

92. Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

93. The problem is that research groups almost always differ in more than one important way, and thus group differences often are consistent with multiple causes. Thus, when you see communicators use findings of differences between groups to support one cause, always ask, "Are there rival causes that might also explain the differences in the groups?"

94. Explanation 1: X is a cause of Y. (Smoking does indeed kill the flu virus.) Explanation 2: Y is a cause of X. (Feeling healthy, or feeling the beginning of what might be the flu, causes people to smoke.) Explanation 3: X and Y are associated because of some third factor, Z. (Smoking and being without the flu are both caused by related factors, such as frequent washing of the hands after smoking prevents the spread of the flu virus.) Explanation 4: X and Y influence each other. (People who do not usually catch the flu have a tendency to smoke, and the smoke may affect some potential illnesses.) Remember: Association or correlation does not prove causation!

95. A cause will indeed precede its effect. But many things preceded that effect. Most of them were not causal.

96. Often, we try to explain a particular event as follows: Because event B followed event A, then event A caused event B. Such reasoning occurs because human beings have a strong tendency to believe that if two events occur close together in time, the first one must have caused the second one.

97. Many events that occur after other events in time are not caused by the preceding events. When we wrongly conclude that the first event causes the second because it preceded it, we commit the Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (meaning: "after this, therefore because of this") fallacy, or, for short, the Post hoc fallacy. Such reasoning is responsible for many superstitious beliefs. For example, you may have written an excellent paper while wearing a particular hat, so now you always insist on wearing the same hat when you write papers.

98. Post hoc Fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.

99. Also, a common bias is "the fundamental attribution error," in which we typically overestimate the importance of personal tendencies relative to situational factors in interpreting the behavior of others. That is, we tend to see the cause of other's behavior as coming from within (their personal characteristics) rather than from without (situational forces.) So, for example, when someone steals something from someone else, we are likely to view the stealing initially as a result of a tendency of the person to be immoral or to be inconsiderate. However, we should also consider the role of outside circumstances, such as poverty or an honest mistake.

100. Be wary of accepting the first interpretation of an event you encounter. Search for rival causes and try to compare their credibility. We must accept the fact that many events do not have a simple explanation.

101. Statistics often deceive us because they are incomplete. Thus, a further helpful strategy for locating flaws in statistical reasoning is to ask, "What further information do you need before you can judge the impact of the statistics?"

102. When you encounter impressive-sounding numbers or percentages, be wary. You may need to get other information to decide just how impressive the numbers are. When only absolute numbers are presented, ask whether percentages might help you make a better judgment; when only percentages are presented, ask whether absolute numbers would enrich their meaning.

103. Imagine a 65-year-old woman who just had a stroke and is discussing treatment options with her doctor. The doctor quotes statistics about three treatment options: (1) Treatment X will reduce the likelihood of a future stroke by 33 percent, (2) Treatment Y will reduce the risk by three percent, and (3) With treatment Z, 94 percent of women are free of a second stroke for 10 years, compared to 91 percent of those who go untreated. Which treatment should she choose? Our guess is that she will choose the first. But all of these options refer to the same size treatment effect. They just express the risk in different ways. The first (the 33 percent) is the "relative risk reduction." If a treatment reduces the risk of heart attack from 9 in 100 to 6 in 100, the risk is reduced by one-third, or 33 percent. But the absolute change, from 9 to 6 percent, is only a three percent reduction, and the improvement of a good outcome from 91 to 94 is also only three percent. The point is that expressing risk reductions in relative, rather than absolute terms, can make treatment effects seem larger than they really are, and individuals are more likely to embrace a treatment when benefits are expressed in relative rather than absolute terms. As you might expect, drug companies usually use relative risk in their ads, and media reports also tend to focus on relative risk. Relative risk reduction statistics can be deceiving. When you encounter arguments using such statistics, always try to determine how the results might be different and less impressive if expressed in absolute terms.

104. Try to find out as much as you can about how the statistics were obtained. Ask, "How does the author or speaker know?"

105. Try to find out as much as you can about how the statistics were obtained. Ask, "How does the author or speaker know?" Be curious about the type of average being described. Be alert to users of statistics concluding one thing, but proving another. Blind yourself to the writer's or speaker's statistics and compare the needed statistical evidence with the statistics actually provided. Form your own conclusion from the statistics. If it doesn't match the author's or speaker's conclusion, then something is probably wrong. Determine what information is missing. Be especially alert for misleading numbers and percentages and for missing comparisons.

106. While critical thinkers are seeking the strength of autonomy, they cannot do so if they are making decisions on the basis of highly limited information. Almost any conclusion or product has some positive characteristics. Those who have an interest in telling us only the information they want us to know will tell us all of these positive characteristics in great and vivid detail. But they will hide the negative aspects of their conclusions. Thus, actual autonomy requires our persistent searching for what is being hidden, either accidentally or on purpose.

107. those trying to persuade you will almost always try to present their position in the strongest possible light. So when you find what you believe to be persuasive reasons—those gold nuggets for which you are prospecting—it's wise to hesitate and to think about what the author may not have told you,

108. Critical thinkers value curiosity and reasonableness; those working to persuade you often want to extinguish your curiosity and to encourage you to rely on unreasonable emotional responses to shape your choices.

109. A particular perspective is like a pair of blinders on a horse. The blinders improve the tendency of the horse to focus on what is directly in front of it. Yet, an individual's perspective, like blinders on a horse, prevents that person from noting certain information that would be important to those who reason from a different frame of reference. Unless your perspective is identical to that of the person trying to persuade you, important omissions of information are to be expected.

110. Let's review. Omitted information is inevitable for at least five reasons. time and space limitations; limited attention span; inadequacies in human knowledge; deception; and existence of different perspectives.

111. There is one type of omitted information that we believe is so important to identify and so often overlooked that we want to specifically highlight it for you: the potential negative effects of actions being advocated, such as the use of a new medication, the building of a large new school, or a proposed tax cut. We stress the negative effects here because usually proposals for such action come into existence in the context of backers' heralding their benefits, such as greater reduction of a certain medical problem, better appearance, more leisure, more educational opportunities, increased length of life, and more and/or improved commodities. However, because most actions have such widespread positive and negative impacts, we need to ask: Which segments of society do not benefit from a proposed action? Who loses? What do the losers have to say about it? How does the proposed action affect the distribution of power? Does the action influence the extent of democracy in our society? How does a particular action affect how we view the world: What we think, how we think, and what we know and can know? What are the action's effects on our health? How does the action influence our relationships with one another? With the natural environment? Will the action have a slow, cumulative impact?

112. Very few important questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or an absolute "no." When people think in black or white, yes or no, right or wrong, or correct or incorrect terms, they engage in dichotomous thinking. This type of thinking consists of assuming there are only two possible answers to a question that has multiple potential answers. This habit of seeing and referring to both sides of a question as if there are only two has devastatingly destructive effects on our thinking. By restricting the conclusions we consider to be only two, we are sharply reducing the robust possibilities that careful reasoning can produce.

113. dichotomous thinking in general, damages reasoning by overly restricting our vision. We think we are finished after considering two optional decisions, thereby overlooking many options and the positive consequences that could have resulted from choosing one of them. Dichotomous thinkers often are rigid and intolerant because they fail to understand the importance of context for a particular answer.

114. You have learned that dichotomous thinking can be avoided by qualifying conclusions, by putting them into context. This qualification process requires you to ask about any conclusion: When is it accurate? Where is it accurate? Why or for what purpose is it accurate?

115. Notice that in each case we added a condition necessary before the conclusion can be justified. In the absence of any data or definitions, any of these seven conclusions could be most reasonable

116. If you went back over all the alternative conclusions discussed in this chapter, you would notice that each optional conclusion is possible because we are missing certain information, definitions, assumptions, or the frame of reference of the person analyzing the reasons. Consequently, we can create multiple conclusions by the judicious use of if-clauses. In an if-clause, we state a condition that we are assuming in order to enable us to reach a particular conclusion. Notice that the use of if-clauses permits us to arrive at a conclusion without pretending that we know more than we actually do about a particular controversy.

117. We frequently encounter issues posed in the following form: Such questions naturally "pull" for dichotomous thinking. Often, however, posing questions in this manner hides a broader question, "What should we do about Y?" (usually some pressing problem). Rewording the question in this way leads us to generate multiple conclusions of a particular form: solutions to the problem raised by the reasons. Generating multiple solutions greatly increases the flexibility of our thinking.

118. Clues for Identifying Alternative Conclusions Try to identify as many conclusions as possible that would follow from the reasons. Use if-clauses to qualify alternative conclusions. Reword the issue to "What should we do about Y?"

119. Very rarely do reasons mean just one thing. After evaluating a set of reasons, you still must decide what conclusion is most consistent with the best reasons in the controversy. To avoid dichotomous thinking in your search for the strongest conclusion, provide alternative contexts for the conclusions through the use of when, where, and why questions.

120. Question Checklist for Critical Thinking What are the issue and the conclusion? What are the reasons? Which words or phrases are ambiguous? What are the value conflicts and assumptions? What are the descriptive assumptions? Are there any fallacies in the reasoning? How good is the evidence? Are there rival causes? Are the statistics deceptive? What significant information is omitted? What reasonable conclusions are possible?

121. Clearly, we might agree or disagree with the conclusion depending on the meaning of regular exercise; thus the phrase is an important ambiguity.

122. 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.

123. 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 a 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 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.

124. How can you give others the sense that your critical thinking is a friendly tool, one that can improve the lives of the listener and the speaker, the reader, and the writer? Like other critical thinkers, we are always struggling with this question. Let us conclude this book with a few of the techniques we try to use. 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. Restate what you heard or read and ask whether your understanding of the argument is consistent with what was written or 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. Work hard to keep the conversation going. If critical thinking is deployed like a bomb, thinking on that topic is halted. Ask the other person for permission to allow you to explore any weaknesses in the reasoning. The idea with this strategy is to encourage the other person to examine the argument with you. Convey the impression that you and the other person are collaborators, working toward the same objective - improved conclusions.