Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover.
|Published (Last):||13 September 2017|
|PDF File Size:||1.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Format, Organization, Special Features, and thinking textbooks is not only glutted, but that it is filled Exercises with poor products that are not informed by relevant scholarly literature and that fail to meet some important, Unlike many textbooks, regardless of the subject, though not exhaustive, criteria that make for a good critical THINK Critically is visually attractive, formatted like a thinking textbook Hamby, , forthcoming : magazine, with a soft cover and glossy, colorful pages, interspersed with photographs throughout with thoughtful Many textbooks, for instance, do not have a plausible, captions beneath them that relate to the textbook material.
Nor do many textbooks recognize the central fying chapter content. Section and sub-section headings role of critical thinking dispositions, though in general guide the reader through each chapter in a helpful way, terms this is a near-unanimous point of agreement providing a kind of road map for the content. Illustrative among critical thinking theorists Facione, Nor do they reveal reader with eye-catching and informative additions to the an awareness of the problem of characterizing argu- principal content of the reading.
Nor do they stress dialectic, dialogue, page rendering of a document produced by Measured or argument revision ibid. Nor do they focus on the Reasons LLC, the critical thinking company that Peter analysis and evaluation of real arguments that have and his wife Noreen Facione spearhead.
Measured Rea- been or could plausibly be used in practice Hamby, sons is associated with the critical thinking measurement Furthermore, textbooks commonly equate company, Insight Assessment, with which the Faciones reasoning and argument analysis with critical think- are also intimately involved see www.
The document discredited Govier, As without some aspects of the book that I find problematic, another example, on pp. These In this review I will discuss the format and organiza- questions are arguments that are somewhat complicated, tion of the textbook, and then summarize its chapters, fo- having more than three premises, and almost all are the cusing on a few in particular.
I will explain why I think this sorts of arguments that could plausibly be used by someone textbook satisfies criteria that any quality critical thinking in a real-life context of deciding what to believe or do. As textbook should meet, but that many other textbooks fail a final example, on p. Instead, each of giving readers easy access to quick and engaging examples them asks the reader in a detailed way to approach various of critical thinking in practice.
No two ex- current, relevant, and often quite novel, regarding top- ercise sections for any two chapters are organized exactly ics that are controversial. As such, this material comes alike, but all exercise sections require the reader to engage close to being as important as the proper content of the substantively in a process of thinking critically about the chapters, by offering readers opportunities to be reflective material.
For instance, on p. In the film Nicholson played a U. Facione and The book is filled with examples such as these, which Gittens offer an approach to exercises that prioritizes the substantively challenge readers to think about serious and real-life context of the questions, that calls for deeper and important problems that deserve their considered attention more substantial critical thinking, and that deemphasizes in real-life contexts of deciding what to believe or do.
If there is some video or interactive point out that since exercises in textbooks are typically material that is related to the content that the authors dis- used by instructors to drill the skills introduced within cuss, then it is likely to be found by going to the address chapters and since this requires using short questions www.
This book fails in this respect, because the questions they have has become a standard part of many textbooks, but it is a generated to exercise the skills and concepts are long and benefit of THINK Critically that there is so much electronic do not involve simple answers. As opposed to other textbooks, the exercises are ercises but rather a substantial benefit. This is because the not one-dimensionally dominated by short, decontextual- exercises mimic what a student should actually be able to ized, artificial questions that test rote knowledge of the do in any instance of real-life thinking that aims at well- material that is introduced in the text.
Part of what makes a practical difference in the it is immediately a pleasure to hold, read, and peruse, and it textbook by virtue of this fact is that, unlike many critical is theoretically informed. The exercise sections give read- thinking textbooks, which introduce the concept of critical ers something substantial to think about, not just another thinking in a cursory introductory chapter, Facione and set of boring drills that do not really test the application of Gittens spend the first two chapters 41 pages providing skills in real-life critical thinking.
Furthermore, since the an in-depth introductory analysis of critical thinking, help- majority of extant critical thinking textbooks are in a more ing to frame the concept so that readers better understand or less traditional format and since they do not offer the how the chapters that follow will fulfill the promise of reader a pleasurable reading experience beyond the body of helping to teach people how to be better critical thinkers.
Contents of the Chapters tive process of thinking, involving skills and virtues, and aiming towards judgments about what to do or believe. They link the concept with the few other textbooks live up to. This is done in a way that importance of an educated citizenry in a free society, an departs from the typical textbook, which tends to cover idea that has deep roots in Western thinking and in con- anything and everything relating to argumentation in an nection with the concept of critical thinking e.
A high score also is indicative of the dispositions self-regulation strategies. They exemplify some making process, offering readers a way to improve that instances of plausible real life critical thinking in narratives process and become better critical thinkers. Chapters 1 and 2 therefore frame the remaining delve deeper into their conception of critical thinking, chapters in a particular light, setting a deep foundation for stressing that the process is a skilled and virtuous activity, those that follow.
That process is: 1 Identify but also must be willing to employ those skills in efforts problems and set priorities, 2 Deepen understanding and at reaching reasoned judgments. Helpfully, they provide a table of self-correct as needed p.
These students pass over in a one term course, but it is no less questions illustrate in a general way the sorts of thoughtful interesting, nor is it any less potentially useful for students questioning that is needed to properly employ the skills should they read it on their own, since they will find it is a of critical thinking.
Readers are helped further when the plausible reflection of decisions and situations they might authors break down each skill into sub skills, and also confront in their own lives. The fact that the consensus statement was not p. Chapter 4 offers a good foundation for readers reached unanimously offers a natural segue into a discus- to focus on the skill of interpretation and the associated sion regarding what elements of the conception might subskills of clarifying meaning and categorizing.
But theoretical talk. Rather, what we have is just what most before arguments can be evaluated, they need to be ana- textbook authors agree is an important first step in learning lyzed, in other words, interpreted and put into a standard how to be better critical thinker; it is simply that Facione form where the structure of the reasons for some claim and Gittens have more to say about the concept than can be clearly exhibited.
Hence the need for Chapter 5. They treat this as being two separate between different statements. First makes sense for students who are more visual learners.
Facione and premises actually do hang together to provide support for Gittens say they follow the standard usage of the phrase the conclusion. But, if more than one reason is as being dependent upon one another, then separating offered to support a claim, it is not clear that those reasons them does not do justice to the argument as it was made.
Some- just whether an author of some argument intended some times reasons are clearly linked together by an arguer in an reasons to be dependent or not upon each other seems interdependent way in order to offer inferential support for a futile effort; besides, even if the author of the argument a claim, because the arguer makes explicit that they are not could be queried, she might not have had any intention only relevant to the claim, but also relevant to each other in mind regarding the strength of the inferential support, regarding the claim.
If that is so, then separating those since she might not have any concept of joint sufficiency reasons in order to see the single argument as if it were two cf. Ennis, , p. This arguments confuses matters, because without representing is to stress that interpreting all multiple premise arguments both reasons as acting in concert, such an interpretation as if they are most plausibly single premise arguments is departs from the way the reasons were explicitly used in a questionable tactic.
As an example, take the way I might reason if I am However, regardless of the way an argument is used, meeting a friend-of-a-friend for dinner, someone whom or the intentions of the arguer in how she used it, this tactic I have never met and whose personality I am wondering seems to go beyond mere interpretation, and begins to be an about. Deciding to interpret multiple premise arguments from each other, their relationship as being jointly suffi- as if each premise independently supports the conclusion cient to establish the conclusion is lost: should one of the is thus a matter of evaluation, not simply interpretation premises be rejected, the other becomes irrelevant toward of what some author could have most plausibly intended.
The argument therefore is We should, therefore, not separate premises into separate more cogent when the joint relevance of the premises is arguments, treating each premise as being independent of taken for granted, rather than their independence. As such the others in itssupport of the conclusion,before we can our interpretive tactic should be to think of this as one argu- make a determination regarding how they are being used ment with premises that are jointly relevant to the conclu- to support thatconclusion, and whether they are relevant sion cf.
Hitchcock, , p. As can be seen in this to each other regarding the conclusion. This formulation of the defi- diagramming all arguments without allowing for premises nition of fallacies is superior to many because it stresses working in concert seems a mistake. The authors should also get a nod for acknowledg- tion. The authors introduce argu- and discussion.
As Hundleby has argued, an ap- ment evaluation as a core aspect of the skills of critical proach that neglects to encourage argument improvement thinking that they say is necessary for the process of reach- perpetuates an adversarial approach to argumentation and ing judgments about what to believe or do.
They offer fallacy identification that prioritizes negative critique over a four-part test to determine whether reasons support a constructive criticism. This statement is supported be true by an audience. For introduce students to a simplistic and rough-cut notion of Govier, truth should not be thought of as either a necessary fallacies, but also gives them a nuanced perspective on or sufficient condition for the worthiness of an argument.
But this leaves open the decision, or action deserves more considered reflection to possibility that one could be reasoning in a way such that come to a judgment about.
It is also a way to begin to be it appears the truth of the conclusion is necessitated by self-aware of, and self-correct for, the sorts of cognitive the truth of the premises, but in fact is not, and that such biases that thwart proper snap-judgments from being made.
That is a bad This chapter then serves as both a warning and a guide for consequence, because to call a bit of reasoning deductive readers who are trying to be more reflective about the way we should be saying that if that reasoning employs true they make judgments. For instance, the authors introduce detail in Facione and Facione In this chapter Facione and Gittens examples to practice the skill of identifying valid deduc- also provide readers with a detailed series of precautions tive inferences and recognizing deductive fallacies, and to keep in mind when thinking critically in an effort to aid in general it offers the reader a helpful introduction to self reflection about the process of thinking critically so as deductive relationships.
Thinking and reasoning articulates the step process that the authors claim isa in human decision making: The method of argument part of any scientific investigation pp. The deductive-inductive distinction. Informal Logic, 22, Critical thinking as argument analysis? Govier, T. A practical study of argument 7th Edi- An appendix ends the textbook with examples of tion.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. What a real argument is. Informal arguments and of the method for mapping that the authors Logic, 32 3 , Finally, the textbook has a glos- Hamby, B. Libri ad nauseam: the sary, an index, and as mentioned above, endnotes from the critical thinking textbook glut.
Paideusis, 21 1. Hitchcock, D. Deductive and inductive: types of validity, not types of argument. Informal Logic IV. Conclusion Newsletter, 2 3 , Deduction, induction and conduc- This is a textbook that breaks the mold of tradition- tion. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3 2 , The format is Hundleby, C. The authority of the fallacies fresh and original, the content relates to real-life problems approach to argument evaluation. Informal Logic, in decision and judgment making, and the conception 30 3 , Where the book falls short, in its treatment of the breakfast: Some dangers and how to deal with them.
Johnson, The rise of informal logic.