PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

  

Prof. Name

Date
Question 1: Fundamental Reasoning Strategies
The text identifies three fundamental reasoning strategies that guide our approach to analyzing information: comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning. Each strategy plays a role in how we interpret data, form arguments, and draw conclusions in critical thinking contexts.
Question 2: Comparative Reasoning and Its Basis
Comparative reasoning involves a process of comparing two concepts or ideas to highlight similarities or differences. This form of reasoning helps individuals interpret information, draw inferences, and offer explanations. It fundamentally relies on critical thinking skills, allowing individuals to link familiar concepts with unfamiliar ones to enhance understanding.
Question 3: Evaluating Comparative Reasoning with Argumentation Tests
The textbook outlines four tests for evaluating arguments: truthfulness of premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. These tests, however, are not ideal for assessing comparative reasoning. For instance, using “true” or “false” as evaluative terms does not sufficiently clarify comparisons in the first test. The second test, which assesses similarities and dissimilarities, often presents conflicting cases, making it challenging to use effectively. The third test requires the maker of the analogy to clarify the comparison’s relevance, which is subjective. Lastly, in the fourth test, unfamiliar concepts complicate connecting premises to conclusions, as seen in comparisons like business and warfare, where the unfamiliarity of war among businesspeople hinders comprehension. Therefore, these tests fall short in evaluating comparative reasoning effectively.
Question 4: Criteria for Evaluating Comparative Reasoning
Five criteria are essential in evaluating comparative reasoning: familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, and testability. Familiarity refers to the listener’s knowledge level of the compared objects. Simplicity examines the complexity of the comparison, while comprehensiveness considers the comparison’s inclusion of key features. Productivity measures the comparison’s ability to generate new ideas, and testability refers to its capacity to predict outcomes that may be false.
Question 5: Importance of Key Similarities in Comparisons
The effectiveness of a comparison is largely determined by the strength of its key similarities. When similarities between two items are strong and persuasive, the credibility of the resulting conclusion is enhanced, as the comparison becomes more meaningful and relevant.
Question 6: Defining Empirical Reasoning
Empirical reasoning is a logical approach based on evidence and observations. It involves using experiential premises to support or refute a hypothesis. This reasoning is inductive, self-corrective, and open to verification through independent scrutiny.
Question 7: Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning
Empirical reasoning possesses three defining characteristics: it is inductive, self-corrective, and verifiable by independent sources, ensuring that conclusions drawn can be challenged and tested for accuracy.
Question 8: The Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis is an empirical concept proposing that any observed association between two variables is purely coincidental. This hypothesis is foundational in statistical testing.
Question 9: Purpose of Empirical Reasoning
The primary goal of empirical reasoning is to provide explanations, make predictions, or control events by drawing on evidence-based premises.
Question 10: Evaluating Empirical Reasoning
Empirical reasoning is evaluated using the four argumentation tests: truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. Independent verification, such as peer review, can further validate empirical findings.
Question 11: Addressing Logical Strength in Research Design
The research design phase that addresses logical strength involves data analysis and interpretation of findings. This stage provides grounds for making logical inferences regarding the hypothesis’s validity, ensuring a robust link between premises and conclusions.
Question 12: Purpose and Process of Peer Review
Peer review involves expert scrutiny of research, evaluating the validity of methods, ideas, and conclusions. Its primary goal is to ensure that published research meets established standards of credibility and rigor.
Question 13: Correlation and Causation in Critical Thinking Courses
While data supports a positive correlation between critical thinking courses and student skill development, this does not imply causation. Multiple factors may contribute to skill improvement, making it inappropriate to attribute causality to course participation alone.
Question 14: Caution in Assumptions About Empirical Reasoning
Empirical reasoning, even if it appears rigorous, should not automatically be assumed to meet all evaluative criteria. Errors in peer review or statistical analysis can lead to the publication of flawed findings; therefore, caution is warranted.
PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint



Questions
Responses
Additional Details




Fundamental Reasoning Strategies
Comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning
These strategies guide the interpretation and evaluation of arguments.


Comparative Reasoning
Involves comparing concepts or ideas to draw conclusions
Based on critical thinking, allowing linkage between known and unknown elements.


Evaluating Comparative Reasoning
Four tests (truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, non-circularity) are less effective for comparative reasoning
Each test encounters limitations due to the nature of comparative reasoning.


Criteria for Comparative Reasoning
Familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, testability
These criteria ensure a more nuanced evaluation.


Importance of Similarities
Strong key similarities enhance the relevance of comparisons
The credibility of conclusions depends on persuasive similarities.


Empirical Reasoning
Reasoning based on observation and experience, used to test hypotheses
Involves inductive and self-corrective processes with independent verification.


Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning
Inductive, self-corrective, open to verification
Ensures reliability through continuous examination.


Null Hypothesis
Proposes that observed relationships are coincidental
Forms the basis of statistical testing in empirical research.


Purpose of Empirical Reasoning
Explain, predict, or control events using evidence-based premises
Critical for drawing valid, actionable conclusions.


Evaluating Empirical Reasoning
Four tests (truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, non-circularity) plus peer review
Independent review validates findings.


Logical Strength in Research
Addressed in data analysis and interpretation stages
Links premises and conclusions with logical robustness.


Peer Review Process
Expert evaluation of research for credibility
Screens out unsubstantiated research.


Correlation and Causation
Positive correlation exists between critical thinking courses and skill growth, but causation is not established
External factors influence skill improvement.


Caution in Empirical Reasoning Assumptions
Empirical rigor does not guarantee passing all evaluative criteria
Errors can occur even in peer-reviewed work.



References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology (7th ed.).