OK, so a fixed link. Just on the paid courses, this sort of thing should be all over education books. I have tried looking for a non-paid course. There is one available from the University of Oxford.
Oxford University - Critical Reasoning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBlQj5u ... 5BDDD2B0B3
Hopefully this one won't need fixing.
You might find this useful, Oxford tends to care about critical thinking so they do a good job here. I think some specific things are worth highlighting and also adding to. The course is done by Marianne Talbot who is still professor today. If you happen to run into her, you might want to ask how important she thinks these skills are in the modern age.
"Argument isn't a set of contradictions. It isn't a set of you-say-one-thing and I-say-another. That doesn't get us anywhere. Part of the point of argument is to move us on from where we are to somewhere a bit further. Just imagine if the only way we could find out about the world was through our senses. If we could see one thing and form one belief, but not take that belief and move on to a to another belief so you could say that [the projector] is blue and the carpet's blue but you couldn't say when two things are the same colour, they match. Therefore the chair and the carpet match. Do you see [how] an argument takes us from where we are to where we want to be?.... we'll never get very far without argument".
An example is put up on the board, featuring a conclusion.
It's Friday.
Marianne always wears jeans on a Friday.
Marianne will be wearing jeans today.
Can you think of a premise where the two top sentences are occurring, but the last one is not occurring? How about where the last sentence is occurring but the two top ones are not? How about when all three are occurring, but the reasons given are totally different? For all you know, she wears jeans everyday. What does that do to the proposed argument?
A more hazier one is put on the board.
The sea is salt.
Melbourne is in Australia
The most basic form of an argument. One sentence is put forward and another sentence is put forward as an argument claim.
During the class, a student asks about basing an argument that may not be based in truth. The response comes
"We'll come onto truth in a minute. You are quite right to think that truth is very important but not just yet..."
The students cannot let this go.
They argue it through the whole session. Marianne has to keep telling them that the facts cannot make up part of this section of the discussion and must be separated. At one point, she beautifully says
If I say 'that chair's black', the facts of the chair not being black is what makes that true
An overeager student interrupts her, even here, as she makes this point.
At one point, they are told
“We're interested only in argument in this session. We're not actually interested in the truth of the premises at all. We're interested only in whether the conclusion follows from the premises. As logicians generally we're not in the business of going out in the world to see whether premises are true or false. We're only in the business of seeing whether the relation between the premises and the conclusion is such that the are the conclusion follows from the premises.”
Ask yourself "why?". Why is the presence of an argument the first thing needed to be considered? Why not the truth?
Speaking of truth
“People think of beliefs as things you can’t prove….that’s not how we use the word belief in philosophy. A belief is something that you postulate in explanation of someone's behaviour or is something you put forward as true or as false. It's certainly not the case that it's something you can't prove. I mean there are many beliefs that we can prove.
I believe that 2 plus 2 is four and I dare say that you wouldn't want me to even attempt to prove that because you believe it too.”
As a teacher of philosophy, she can use the word ‘prove’ as it is not scientifically tied in philosophy. Anyway, putting that aside, what if she had some other belief? Let’s say it’s not 2 + 2. She doesn’t make an argument here, because 2 + 2 is not under dispute. What if it was something else? Let’s say it was something really complicated. What duty, do you think, she would have then?
I'd like to leave you with a quote from the very first season of Buffy where a discussion is held about the comparisons of books and computers.
Giles: I'll see you anon.
Jenny: Can't get out of here, fast enough, can you?
Giles: Truthfully.... I'm even less anxious to be around computers than I used to be.
Jenny: Well, it was your book that started all the trouble...NOT a computer. Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?
Giles: The smell.
Jenny: Computers don't smell Rupert.
Giles: I know. Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences long forgotten. Books smell. Musty...and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer is...it has no texture. No context. It's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, the getting of knowledge should be tangible. It should be....smelly.
Later in the series, Giles and the gang use computers and books. This is a constant.
Previously, I assumed critical reasoning was taught everywhere. Not only that, critical takes had become incredibly popular on media platforms. It almost seemed like it's the only thing people ever did. However, I realise now that it was being done in a way that is slightly different. Had I known before, it would probably be the only thing I would have talked about.
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
