(Self-Help) A Mini Guide To Critical Thinking
(Self-Help) A Mini Guide To Critical Thinking
(Self-Help) A Mini Guide To Critical Thinking
Joe Lau
Department of Philosophy
The University of Hong Kong
August 2003
Table of contents
1. Introduction .......................................................... 1
2. Meaning ............................................................... 1
3. Definitions ............................................................ 3
7. Arguments.......................................................... 13
10. Causation........................................................... 20
Critical thinking is a general thinking skill that is useful for all sorts of
careers and professions. Clear and systematic thinking can improve the
comprehension and expression of ideas, so good critical thinking can also
enhance language and presentation skills.
This mini guide contains a brief discussion of the basics of critical thinking.
It is neither a comprehensive survey nor a self-contained textbook. The
aim is to highlight some of the more important concepts and principles of
critical thinking to give a general impression of the field. For further study,
readers can look up the books and online resources listed at the end.
2. Meaning
-1-
of a sequence of words is determined by its grammatical properties and
the meanings that are conventionally assigned to those words. The literal
meaning of a statement should be distinguished from its conversational
implicature - the information that is implicitly conveyed in a particular
conversational context, distinct from the literal meaning of the statement.
For example, suppose we ask Lily whether she wants to go to the cinema
and she replies, "I am very tired." Naturally we would infer that Lily does
not want to go to the cinema. But this is not part of the literal meaning of
what is said. Rather, the information that she does not want to go is
inferred indirectly. Similarly, suppose we hear Lala says, "Po likes books".
We might perhaps take Lala to be saying that Po likes to read. But this is at
most the conversational implicature, and not part of the literal meaning of
what is being said. It might turn out that Po hates reading and she likes
books only because she regards them as good investment. But even if this
is the case, Lala's assertion is still true.
One important point illustrated by this example is that when we want to find
out whether a statement is true, it is its literal meaning that we should
consider, and not its conversational implicature. This is particularly
important in the legal context. The content of a contract is typically given
by the literal meaning of the terms of the contract, and if there is a dispute
about the contract, ultimately it is settled by looking at the literal meaning
of the terms, and not by what one or the other party thinks was implied
implicitly.
Meaninglessness
-2-
3. Definitions
Reportive definition
Stipulative definition
Precising definition
-3-
since it is not clear how old one should be in order to be an elderly person.
So one might define "an elderly person" to mean "any person of age 65 or
above". This is of course one among many possible definitions.
Persuasive definition
Evaluating definitions
-4-
definition correctly captures the usage of the term that is defined. In
particular, this means that the definition should be neither too wide nor too
narrow.
A definition is TOO WIDE (or too broad) if the definien applies to things that
the definiendum does not apply to. For example, defining an airplane as a
machine that flies is too wide since helicopters are also flying machines
but they are not airplanes.
Notice that a definition may be both too wide and too narrow at the same
time. If you define vegetables as the edible leaves of any plant, the
definition is too narrow as it fails to include tomatoes and potatoes. On the
other hand, it is also too wide as tea leaves are edible but are not
vegetables.
The question of whether a definition is too broad or too narrow does not
arise with stipulative definitions, since the definition is not meant to capture
existing usage. But it is important that the definition should avoid circularity,
inconsistency and obscurity.
-5-
To show that X is not a necessary condition for Y, we simply find a situation
where Y is present but X is not. Examples :
We invoke the notion of a necessary condition very often in our daily life,
even though we might be using different terms. For example, when we say
things like "life requires oxygen", this is equivalent to saying that the
presence of oxygen is a necessary condition for the existence of life.
A certain state of affairs might have more than one necessary condition.
For example, to be a good concert pianist, having good finger technique is
a necessary condition. But this is not enough. Another necessary condition
is being good at interpreting piano pieces.
Ÿ Loving someone is not sufficient for being loved. A very mean and
wicked person who loves someone might not be loved by anyone.
Ÿ Loyalty is not sufficient for honesty because one might have to lie in
order to protect the person one is loyal to.
Expressions such as "If X then Y", or "X is enough for Y", can also be
understood as saying that X is a sufficient condition for Y. Note that some
state of affairs can have more than one sufficient condition. Being blue is
sufficient for being colored, but of course being green, being red are also
-6-
sufficient for being colored.
Given any two conditions X and Y, there are four ways in which they might
be related to each other:
This classification is very useful when we want to clarify how two concepts
are related to each other. Here are some examples :
Ÿ Having four sides is necessary but not sufficient for being a square
(since a rectangle has four sides but it is not a square).
Ÿ Having a son is sufficient but not necessary for being a parent (a
parent can have only one daughter).
Ÿ Being an unmarried man is both necessary and sufficient for being a
bachelor.
Ÿ Being a tall person is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a
successful person.
Necessary and sufficient conditions are often very useful in explaining the
connections between abstract concepts. For example, in explaining the
nature of democracy we might say that the rule-of-law is necessary but not
sufficient for democracy.
5. Linguistic pitfalls
Ambiguity
-7-
example, the word "deep" can mean profundity ("What you have said is
very deep."), or it can be used to describe physical depth ("This hole is
very deep"). Similarly for words like "young" (inexperienced or young of
age), "bank" (river bank or financial institution), etc.
REFERENTIAL AMBIGUITY arises when the context does not make it clear
what a pronoun or quantifier is referring to. For example, the following
statement does not make it clear who is hurt:
Ÿ “Ally hit Georgia and then she started bleeding." Who is bleeding?
Ally or Georgia, or a third party?
Many people like to make very general statements, such as "politicians are
corrupt". Literally, this statement implies that there is no politician who is
not corrupted. But of course we can think of many counterexamples to
such a claim. So the person who makes the statement might say "I don't
really mean each and every politician." But then who exactly are the
people referred to?
SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY means having more than one meaning because there
is more than one way to interpret the grammatical structure. This can
happen even when it is clear what the meanings of the individual words
are. Consider the sentence "we shall be discussing violence on TV." It
might mean the discussion will be conducted during a television program,
or it might mean violence on TV is the topic to be discussed.
When dealing with ambiguous language we should ensure that the context
makes it clear to the audience what the correct interpretation should be.
When we encounter ambiguity, we might try to clarify meaning explicitly by
listing out all the different possible interpretations. This process of
removing ambiguity is known as "disambiguation". Naturally, avoiding
ambiguity applies only to situations where we want to communicate
precisely and accurately. In literary activities, ambiguity might actually be
desirable.
Vagueness
-8-
surroundings suddenly switch from being bright to being dark. So “dark”
and “bright” are vague terms.
"Tall" is also vague since there are cases where it is hard to say whether a
person is tall or not, but this indecision is not due to lack of knowledge
about that person's height. You might know exactly how tall that person is,
but still you cannot decide whether he is tall or not. This is because the
meaning of the term is not precise enough. Many terms in the language
are vague, e.g. "mountain", "clever", "cheap".
But of course words like "difficult" and "a lot" are vague. It is not clear how
these questions should be answered! Vague claims are also frequent in
horoscope predictions. Here is one:
-9-
Incomplete Meaning
Ÿ "Will this year's final exam be similar to the one last year?"
Ÿ "It is better to be beautiful than to be good. But . . . it is better to be
good than to be ugly." - Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Distortion
Reification
- 10 -
The word "reify" came from the Latin word "res", which means thing.
Reification is treating an abstract idea or property as if it were a concrete
physical object. For example, one slogan on a popular TV programme
says "The truth is out there." This treats truth as if it were a physical object
that can either be in here or out there somewhere. But truth is an abstract
property of claims and theories and is not located anywhere. So this is an
example of reification. Of course, we know roughly what the intended
meaning is. What is meant is probably something like "the truth about [a
certain issue] is something that we can discover if we try hard enough."
For a different example, consider the popular claim that "History is just." A
person or a system of rules or laws can be just or unjust, but justice is not
really a property of history, taken as a body of facts about what has
happened in the past. But again we can guess what the speaker might
have in mind when the statement is made. Perhaps the intended meaning
is something like "in time people will make the correct and fair opinion on
the matter under discussion."
The two examples here show that reification in itself need not be
objectionable. It increases dramatic impact and is often used in poetry and
metaphors. However, if our purpose is to convey information clearly and
simply, then reification should perhaps be avoided. If a claim that involves
reification constitutes a meaningful and informative claim, then it can be
expressed more clearly in simpler language without using reification.
When it is difficult if not impossible to carry out this translation, this is a
good sign that the original statement does not actually have a clear
meaning. So, in general, unless you want dramatic impact, avoid using
reification. But if you have to, make sure you know what you really intend
to say.
Category mistakes
- 11 -
mistake as laws are regulations and rules, and people are not. Of course,
sometimes people do say “I am the law” to mean they are the boss and
that everyone should obey whatever they command. But this goes against
the idea of justice and rule-of-law which are central to modern democratic
communities. Law students should know better than proclaim slogans like
that.
Consistency
Two (or more) statements are inconsistent with each other when it is
logically impossible for all of them to be true at the same time. For
example, “The earth is flat”, and “The earth is spherical” are inconsistent
statements since nothing can be both flat and spherical. On the other hand,
if you have any two statements that are both true, they are certainly
consistent.
Entailment
If X entails Y and we find out that Y is false, then we should conclude that
X is also false. But of course, if X entails Y and we find out that X is false, it
does not follow that Y is also false.
If X entails Y but Y does not entail X, then we say that X is a stronger claim
than Y (or "Y is weaker than X”). For example, "all birds can fly" is stronger
than "most birds can fly", which is still stronger than "some birds can fly".
- 12 -
Logical Equivalence
If two statements entail each other then they are logically equivalent. For
example, "everyone is ill" is equivalent to "nobody is not ill", and "cheap
things are no good" is actually equivalent to "good things are not cheap". If
two statements are logically equivalent, then necessarily they must always
have the same truth value.
7. Arguments
Arguments in real life often are not presented in such a neat manner, with
the premises and conclusions clearly laid out. So how do we identify them?
There are no easy mechanical rules, and we usually have to rely on the
context in order to determine which are the premises and the conclusions.
But sometimes the job can be made easier by the presence of certain
premise or conclusion indicators. For example, if a person makes a
statement, and then adds "this is because ...", then it is quite likely that the
first statement is presented as a conclusion, supported by the statements
that come afterwards. Words like "after all", "suppose" and "since" are also
often used to precede premises, though obviously not in cases like "I have
been here since noon". Conclusions, on the other hand, are often
preceded by words like "therefore", "so", "it follows that". However,
- 13 -
sometimes the conclusion of an argument might not be explicitly written
out. For example it might be expressed by a rhetorical question:
Ÿ How can you believe that corruption is acceptable? It is neither fair nor
legal!
Good reading skills include the ability to reconstruct the arguments that
are presented informally, and good writing and presentation skills include
the ability to present arguments systematically and clearly.
Obviously, if the premise is true, there is no way that the conclusion will be
false. So the argument is indeed valid. Notice that the validity of the
argument does not depend on whether the premise is in fact true. Even if
Barbie is actually only 10 years old, the argument is still valid. Validity only
requires that when the premises are true, so is the conclusion. It depends
only on the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. It
does not depend on their actual truth or falsity. A valid argument can have
false premises and a false conclusion. A valid argument can also have a
false premise but a true conclusion, as when Barbie is 30 years old.
- 14 -
Ÿ Barbie is over 20 years old. So Barbie is over 90 years old.
The argument is not valid because it is possible that the premise is true
and the conclusion is false, as when Barbie is 30 years old, or 80 years old.
Call these situations COUNTEREXAMPLES to the argument. Basically, we are
defining a valid argument as an argument with no possible
counterexamples. To sharpen your skills in evaluating arguments, it is
important that you are able to discover and construct counterexamples.
Being able to provide counterexamples can help you convince other
people that a certain argument is mistaken.
Notice that an invalid argument can have true premises and a true
conclusion. The invalid argument above is an example if Barbie is 99
years old. Remember that true premises and a true conclusion are not
sufficient for validity, because the logical connection between them is
missing.
Soundness
Given a valid argument, all we know is that if the premises are true, so is
the conclusion. But validity does not tell us whether the premises or the
conclusion are true or not. If an argument is valid, and all the premises are
true, then it is called a SOUND argument. Of course, it follows from such a
definition that a sound argument must also have a true conclusion.
Hidden assumptions
- 15 -
When people give arguments sometimes certain assumptions are left
implicit. Example :
Once this is pointed out, we can ask whether it is justified. We might argue
for example, that there are plenty of things that are “unnatural” but are not
usually regarded as wrong (e.g. playing video games, having medical
operations, contraception). As this example illustrates, pointing out the
hidden assumption in an argument can help resolve or clarify the issues
involved in a dispute.
Modus ponens
- 16 -
Consider the following arguments :
Ÿ If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.
Here, the letters P and Q are called sentence letters. They are used to
translate or represent statements. By replacing P and Q with appropriate
sentences, we can generate the original three valid arguments. This
shows that the three arguments have a common form. It is also in virtue of
this form that the arguments are valid, for we can see that any argument of
the same form is a valid argument. Because this particular pattern of
argument is quite common, it has been given a name. It is known as
MODUS PONENS .
However, don't confuse modus ponens with the following form of argument,
which is not valid!
See if you can come up with situations where the premises of these
- 17 -
arguments are true but the conclusions false. They would show that the
arguments are not valid.
Modus tollens
Ÿ If Elsie is competent, she will get an important job. But Elsie is not
competent. So she will not get an important job.
Hypothetical syllogism
Ÿ If God created the universe then the universe will be perfect. If the
universe is perfect then there will be no evil. So if God created the
universe there will be no evil.
Disjunctive syllogism
- 18 -
government is not going to carry out sensible educational reforms. So
the only good schools left will be private ones for rich kids.
Dilemma
Ÿ Either we increase the tax rate or we don't. If we do, the people will be
unhappy. If we don't, the people will also be unhappy. (Because the
government will not have enough money to provide for public services.)
So the people are going to be unhappy anyway.
The Latin name here simply means "reduced to absurdity". Here is the
method to follow if you want to prove that a certain statement S is false:
Those of you who can spot connections quickly might notice that this is
none other than an application of modus tollens. As an example, suppose
someone claims that the right to life is absolute and that it is always wrong
to kill a life, no matter what the situation is. Now assume that this is true.
We would then have to conclude that killing for self-defense is also wrong.
But surely this is not correct. If someone threatens your life and the only
way to save yourself is to kill the attacker, then most people would agree
that this is permissible, and it is recognized as such under the law. Since
the original claim leads to an unacceptable consequence, we should
conclude that the right to life is not absolute.
Other Patterns
- 19 -
Some are too obvious to mention, e.g.
Ÿ P and Q. Therefore Q.
It is understandable that you might not remember the names of all these
patterns. What is important is that you can recognize these argument
patterns when you come across them in everyday life, and that you can
construct instances of these patterns.
10. Causation
Suppose we find out that people who use electronic diaries and computer
address books tend to have worse memory. It is natural to think that
deterioration of memory is caused by over-reliance on computer devices.
But it might be the other way round. Perhaps there is such a correlation
because people who do not have good memories (for genetic or other
reasons) are more likely to rely on such devices.
Suppose a study shows that married couples who have sex more often are
less likely to get divorce. Should one therefore have more sex in order to
avoid divorce? Before drawing such a conclusion, we have to consider the
possibility that there might be a common cause underlying the correlated
events. In this particular case, the reason for the correlation is perhaps just
that if two persons love each other, they are more likely to have sex and
less likely to separate. So love is the common cause behind the correlated
- 20 -
events. Simply having more sex might not make divorce less likely.
Perhaps it has the opposite effect!
11. Morality
Morality is about what is right or wrong, and what should or should not be
done, and what rights or duties we might have. As such morality is
normative and not purely descriptive. Descriptive statements describe
facts without any value judgments. The claim that “Your nose is longer
than your ear” is a descriptive claim. No value judgment is involved since
the statement says nothing as to whether what is described is good or bad.
In contrast, the following claims are normative claims:
Notice that descriptive claims about moral beliefs in themselves are not
normative. The statement “Peter thinks that abortion is wrong” is a
descriptive statement about one of Peter’s beliefs. There is not judgment
of whether Peter is right or wrong so this is not a normative claim.
- 21 -
should be careful of arguments that rely on purely descriptive assumptions
to derive a normative conclusion. An example is to argue that cloning is
wrong because it is unnatural. What counts as unnatural is not very clear,
but if it is a matter of whether something occurs naturally in the
environment, then the claim that something is or is not natural is a
descriptive claim, and by themselves they have no normative
consequences. This can be done only when normative assumptions like
“unnatural things are wrong” are added.
12. Fallacies
- 22 -
relevant conversational context. Asking whether human nature is
good or evil presupposes that there is such a thing as human
nature and that it must be either good or bad. But these
assumptions might not be correct and if no adequate justification is
offered then the question might not be an appropriate one.
Ÿ Fallacies of relevance are cases where an irrelevant assumption is
used to defend a conclusion. For example, suppose a student failed
a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass instead,
because “otherwise I would not be able to find a good job”. This is
an example of the fallacy of irrelevance since grades should be
given on the basis of performance only.
Ÿ Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where the evidence supporting
a conclusion is insufficient or weak. The naturalistic fallacy is one
example.
- 23 -
concepts.
In this booklet we have discussed only a very small part of critical thinking.
If you want to learn more you can look up these books and resources :
- End -
- 24 -