Critical thinking is not just the new buzzword in education. Critical thinking involves
In 2012, Psychologist Heather Butler studied the importance that critical thinking plays in our everyday lives. “Critical thinking is not just the new buzzword in education. Critical thinking involves real outcomes that can be measured, predicted, and—perhaps for the negative life events—avoided” (Butler, 2012, p. 725).
In 2013, studies by Grossmann, Varnum, Kitayama, and Nisbett concluded that wise reasoning, rather than intelligence, was a predictor of well-being. In 2017, Dr. Butler and her colleagues, referencing the Grossmann study and based on their own research, determined that the ability to think critically was a better predictor of effective life decisions than was intelligence (Butler, Pentoney, & Bong, 2017).
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
Do you agree that wisdom/critical thinking is a better predictor of well-being than intelligence? To answer, you will have to define what the following terms mean for you:
Critical thinking
Wisdom
Intelligence
Well-being
Reflect on what you read in the text this week. Think of the people you know.
Are the good people smart?
Are the smart people good?
How do you define “good”? How do you define “smart”?
Can we use our intelligence to become “good”? If yes, how? If no, why not?
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Look at your peers’ definitions. Do you agree with them? If yes, why, if no, why not?
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines
Course Outcomes (CO): 1, 7
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
References
Butler,H.A. (2012, Sep/Oct). Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real-world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 721-729. 10.1002/acp.2851
Butler, H.A., Pentoney, C., & Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 38-46. https://www.umass.edu/preferen/You%20Must%20Read%20This/ThinkingSkills.pdf
Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M.E.W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R.E. (2013). A route to well-being: intelligence versus wise reasoning. Journal of Experiential Psychology: General, 142(3), 944–953. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3594053
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 2 Discussion
Context, Meaning, and Value
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 4, 5
Lesson
At least 1 news article (e.g., latimes.com, usatoday.com, nytimes.com)
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Initial Post Instructions
Select one of the following options to research for this discussion:
Option 1: Google <California Washington mural>. You will find numerous reports concerning a California school district that voted to paint over a mural in the high school. The Life of Washington was painted by Depression-era artist Victor Arnautoff.
Option 2: Google <Indiana University Thomas Hart Benton mural>. You will find numerous articles on the controversy surround a panel from Benton’s A Social History of Indiana (1933) murals.
Option 3: Conduct research on a mural or statue or monument in your town that is the subject of controversy.
Before you read the news articles, try to look at the artworks through an image search in Google. Then, read the news articles to see the different viewpoints about the murals.
For the initial post, address at least four (4) of the following questions for the option you selected:
What do you think should be done with the artwork (e.g., painted over, covered, destroyed, left as is in plain view, etc.)? Why?
Should the context in which the artwork was created (the Great Depression of the 1930s in the case of the Benton and Arnautoff murals) have an impact on the decision of what to do with the artwork?
Should the context in which people now view the artwork have an impact on the decision of what to do with it?
What message do you think the artwork conveys?
Do you think there is ambiguity in the message?
Do you think the message is vague?
Does the artistic value of the artwork require that it be saved regardless of message?
Does the historic value of the artwork require that it be saved regardless of message?
Do you think the message of the artwork is sufficiently important that the message alone requires that it be saved?
Do you think the artists were biased or prejudiced? If yes, explain specifics about the artwork that support your opinion. Do you think viewers might be bringing bias or prejudice to their opinions? Are you?
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Respond to one peer who chose a controversial artwork other than the one you chose. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Do you agree or disagree with your peers’ positions? Explain why. In addition, address different issues than what your peer focused on.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 3 Discussion
Evaluating Sources
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 6, 7
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Introduction
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not their own facts.” (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, cited in Vanity Fair, 2010, para. 2)
We form opinions – and make our judgments – based on facts we observe and values we hold. Our judgments are also influenced by the opinions of others. In the section “An Expert on Hate in America” in Chapter 6, one of the authors, Dr. Peter Facione, renders an opinion on a non-profit civil rights organization: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Dr. Facione is a leading advocate and one of the most influential voices in the field of critical thinking.
His endorsement of the civil rights organization is unqualified. It is also transparent: Dr. Facione reveals that he is a financial supporter of the organization and has arranged speaking engagements for its founder. This is Dr. Facione’s invitation to you, the reader:
Knowing where you can learn more about the SPLC for yourself, and knowing about Dr. Facione’s endorsement and support of the Center’s work, evaluate this claim made by Dr. Facione: “The SPLC is an expert on hate in America” (p. 124).
The endorsement of the SPLC is contained in the most current edition of the text, whose copyright date is 2016. Since that time Morris Dees, co-founder and former chief trial counsel, has been fired (Hassan, Zraick & Blinder, 2019). Previously, there has been controversy about groups and individuals that are listed by the SPLC as “hate groups” (Graham, 2016; Price, 2018). The organization, which has nearly a half-billion dollars in assets, has also been criticized for how it spends these funds (Robinson, 2019).
Self-Assessment Question
Before you submit your initial post, make sure to read the assigned chapter. Then, ask yourself the following: Did the article in Chapter 6 of the text seem credible and reliable? Why? Be very specific:
Was it because it is in a textbook?
Because it was written by a learned and respected person?
Because of content in the article?
Because of your previous knowledge of the SPLC?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
Conduct additional research on the SPLC. Did your opinion alter in any way? Why?
Only after you have done some responsible research should you begin to respond to the discussion prompt. The discussion is not about the SPLC; it is not about Dr. Facione. It is about what you have learned about forming opinions.
Your post must answer this question:
How do you define the term “expert”?
Your post must also discuss at least two (2) of the following questions:
How important are facts in the process of forming an opinion? Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts in making a judgment.
How did you respond to the self-assessment question? Since doing further research, have you re-thought the way in which you assess credibility and reliability? What is the importance of factoring the recency of a reference or opinion (i.e., how old is it?) into an assessment of credibility and reliability?
How would you evaluate Dr. Facione’s claim “The SPLC is an expert on hate in America” (p. 124). Does the SPLC fit your definition of “expert”? Be specific in your answer.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 4 Discussion
Distinguishing Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction)
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Click on the following tabs to review the concepts that will be addressed in this activity:
Valid Argument StructuresDeductiveInductive
A valid structure is the way in which an argument is put together that assures it will pass the test of logical strength.
The Basic Structure of Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Click on the following links to view argument examples:
Link: Deductive Argument Example
Link: Inductive Argument
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
Find and post examples of deductive and inductive arguments.
For each example, evaluate its logical strength, using the concepts and ideas presented in the textbook readings, the lesson, and any other source you find that helps you to evaluate the validity (deductive) or strength (inductive) of the argument. You can use examples from the text, or you can find examples elsewhere.
Editorials and opinion columns are a good source, as are letters to the editor. Blogs will also often be based on arguments.
Use mapping and evaluative techniques to make sure it is an argument.
Is it inductive or deductive? Explain why.
Does it pass the tests of validity and strength? Explain.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Do you agree with their analysis – be very specific about why you agree or disagree.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 5 Discussion
In My Opinion
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 10, 11
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Initial Post Instructions
Consider one of the following current social issues – or one of your choice:
Opioid crisis
Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana
Vaping
Immigration
Elimination of the electoral college
Gun control
For the initial post, address the following:
State your position on one of these issues – are you for, against, or neutral? Explain why. Avoid vagueness or ambiguity in your response. Make your position very clear.
Examine how you have formed that opinion.
How well do you think you know the facts?
Do you know and understand statistical information that applies to the issue?
Do you think you have formed your opinion using only System-1 thinking, or have you applied System-2?
What part have heuristics, cognitive bias, and dominance structuring played in how you have formed your opinions?
The initial post is not about how “correct” your position is; it is about how you arrived at your position on the issue. This discussion requires application of metacognition – thinking about how you think.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
In your responses, look for another student’s post, either on the same or a different issue. Choose, where possible, a peer whose initial post has not yet been examined by another student, and examine it. Do you agree or disagree with your peer?
Is your initial reaction to your peer “So, right; you bet!” or is it “So wrong, you’re all wet!”
Examine carefully your thinking in response to your peers:
What part, if any, have facts, heuristics, or dominance structuring played in your response?
What part, if any, has cognitive bias played in your response?
You should also look at responses to your initial post:
Did your peer fairly evaluate you? Discuss this with your peer.
You may find that just the minimum three posts are not sufficient to discover whether you can identify these elements. You will have to make a judgement call: do the minimum three and miss out on the deep thinking required by this exercise, or go beyond the minimum three and really begin to understand your thought processes and the concept of critical thinking.
A very valuable final post would be to discuss your judgment call: perhaps you “got it” in three; perhaps you opted for more than three; perhaps other demands on your time did not allow you to exercise as much deep thinking as you would have liked to do. Perhaps you did not see much value in the discussion – a very valuable final post would be a brief statement of why you found it so. Do not be shy about critiquing the exercise. Look at “A Poorly Crafted Assignment” in section 11.1 of the text in which the authors critique a similar assignment.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 6 Discussion
DQ1 Comparative Reasoning
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 12
Lesson 1, 2
Link (library article): The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953 (Links to an external site.)
Link (library article): The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? (Links to an external site.)
Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs (Links to an external site.)
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)
Introduction
The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).
The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:
In what way are the two situations comparable?
In what way are they different?
Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
References DeShazo, R.D., Johnson, M., Eriator, Ike, Rodenmeyer, K. (2018). Backstories on the U.S. opioid epidemic. Good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue, and watch dogs gone to sleep. The American Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30084-6/fulltext
Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-who-is-to-blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/
Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site
Wolinsky H., & Brune, T. (1994). The serpent on the staff: The unhealthy politics of the American Medical Association. Tarcher/Putnam.
DQ2 Empirical Reasoning
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 14
Lesson 1, 2
Link (library article): Myopia and Ambient Lighting at Night (Links to an external site.)
Link (library article): Myopia and Ambient Night-Time Lighting (Links to an external site.)
Link (website): What Are Clinical Trials and Studies? (Links to an external site.)
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)
Introduction
As the text points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause/effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies.
In 1999, a study on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (Quinn). The study received wide-spread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings.
Initial Post Instructions
Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (including the website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies and how methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported.
Reportage of both studies can be found with an Internet search using all of the following terms: <Philadelphia myopia night lights>.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
References
National Intitute on Aging. (n.d.). What are clinical trials and studies? https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-clinical-trials-and-studies
Quinn, G. E., Shin, C. H., Maguire, M. G. & Stone, R. A. (1999). Myopia and ambient lighting at night. Nature, 399 (6732), 113-114. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=10335839&site=eds-live&scope=site
Zadnik, K., Jones, L. A., Irvin, B. C., Kleinstein, R. N., Manny, R. E., Shin, J. A., & Mutti, D. O. (2000). Myopia and ambient night-time lighting. CLEERE study group. Collaborative longitudinal evaluation of ethnicity and refractive error. Nature, 404(6774), 143-144. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=10724157&site=eds-live&scope=site
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 7 Discussion
What Do I Value?
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 13
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Introduction
At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending – even to the point of risking your life in their defense.
When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked – and lost – their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances – or is war never an appropriate response?
This is not a group exercise – post your thoughts, considering the scenarios proposed in the text or any others you find important. Be sure to give your reasons for your answer.
Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are stating a position and supporting it with “top down” reasoning. Be sure to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning. Apply these concepts as you create your own arguments and evaluate those of your peers.
Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your post structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a general idea (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down from these abstractions to their specific applications?
The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test of Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of your premises?
Note
You will be writing here about what you value highly. Others may not share your values. Indeed, you may find that someone will write something that is entirely opposed to your values. As critical thinkers and reasoners, we do not take offense because someone disagrees with us. Critical thinkers examine their own argument, and the arguments of others, objectively, rationally, and logically. Critical thinkers and reasoners do not find the opinions of others “right” or “wrong” – they find them well-supported or not well-supported.
Respect the opinion of your classmates. If you feel the need to disagree, do so respectfully and acknowledge the valid points in your classmate’s argument.
Do not write anything that sounds angry or sarcastic even as a joke, because without hearing your tone of voice, your peers might not realize you are joking.
The real objective here is discovering what values and beliefs are important to you and whether or not you have a sound basis for those beliefs.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Do you agree with their answers?
Would you join them in going to war for the reasons they advance, or do you disagree with their reasons? Explain why.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
PHIL347N Critical Reasoning
Week 8 Discussion
When the People You Love Don’t Think Like You
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 16
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Introduction
Facione & Gittens (2016) state, “Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree” (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.
Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist – a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?
Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.
As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:
Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
