7Principles of Critical Thinking

GROUP MEMBERS

YOSEF GERAWORK …………….ETS1595/17

YOSEF GETU……………………..ETS1596/17

YOSEF TADESSE……………….ETS1597/17

YOSEPH ABDULEKERIM………ETS1599/17

YOSEPH BEKELE……………..ETS1600/17

Section 32

Submission date 28/12/24

Submitted to
Principles of Critical Thinking

1. The Fallibility Principle

Everyone needs to be open to the possibility that his or her initial position may be wrong or have
some weakness. By accepting this possibility, one is in the best situation to allow the strength of the
argument to determine which one of the arguments can be substantiated, if none of the arguments
can be substantiated, or if all that can be determined is which is the stronger argument.

It is generally accepted by most that the complexity of the world far exceeds our capacity to fully
comprehend it. Meaning we’re each forced to resort to various methods of simplification in our
efforts to interpret things and make sound decisions in our lives metaphors, rules, and
generalizations are some of the methods we depend upon to do just that.

Our brain is constantly mapping the world in this way, and like all map projections, distortion of
reality is necessary in order to establish a comprehensible form of it. This distortion is what’s known
as the Principle of Fallibility. And all Humans are affected by it. Now that shouldn’t really be news for
anyone who is paying attention. But the extent of the problem and how it affects us negatively isn’t
as widely accepted as I believe it probably should be.

Here’s an easy way of looking at the problem of fallibility. Think of a map for a moment. A map will
always fall short of portraying the actual state of the environment it’s attempting to portray. You
don’t look at a map and believe for one second that it truly represents the portrayed environment.
It’s a lower resolution impression of reality limited by its scale, detail, time period etc. If any map
was truly capable of representing reality with 100% accuracy, it would literally have to be the size of
the territory itself to account for every single detail remodelling in real-time to comprehend any new
variables that arose like a huge slab of rock falling into the sea for example. Could a map tell me how
many trees are in a forest? Or how cold the river is right now? Almost certainly not. A map’s utility is
confined to its capacity of resembling reality.

One’s worldview shares similar parallels. It’s like a map in its own right an impression of the world,
restricted by the limits of our perceptional functions and our own prejudices. And like a map, the
utility of our worldview is confined to its capacity of resembling reality. Could my worldview tell me
where to invest my money? Or how to deal with a troubled relationship? That depends on how
accurately one’s map represents reality. The closer your map can portray objectivity, the more likely
your strategies will succeed and the better you’re able to understand the world around you. But
know this: Your map’s impression of the external world is never objective. It can always be improved
upon.

And this is no easy task. Because the impressions we form about reality are also subject to scale.
With so much information available, our brain has no choice but to automatically filter most of it out
and form a lower resolution impression of reality choosing to retain only what information is
deemed important enough for us to need.

2. The Truth Seeking Principle

The goal of each reviewer must be to determine which position has the strongest argument. Based
on the strength of the arguments, the reviewers must determine which position can be
substantiated or at least which position is the strongest. In order to make the best determination,
everyone must be committed to thoroughly scrutinizing the strength of each position, looking for
strengths in the positions of others, and allow others to express their opinions and concerns about
all aspects of all the positions.

3. The Clarity Principle

Although reasoning is something that you can do in the relative privacy of your own mind, it is more
commonly an act of communication. Usually it is to others that we justify our beliefs and with others
that we attempt to understand the world. As such, reasoning is a cooperative undertaking that
requires clarity on the part of those who supply it, and charity on the part of those who receive it. So
far we have focused on the importance of charity as a guide to the reconstruction and evaluation of
rationales. We now turn to the importance of clarity in the actual formulation and presentation of
reasoning.

Like the Principle of Charity, the Principle of Clarity can be formulated in the language of the Golden
Rule: Reason unto others as you would have them reason unto you. But, again just the Principle of
Charity, this formulation works only for those who are comfortable approaching reasoning from a
logical point of view. Someone who reasons "You should wear the black dress. The one you're
wearing makes you look a lot fatter than you are," is quite a bit clearer than someone who reasons
"That's a really pretty dress, but maybe you should wear the black one tonight instead. It shows off
your figure even better." But there are times in life when clarity isn't the most important thing.

It is worth noting here that while we will usually speak of clarity as a presentational virtue and
charity as an interpretive virtue, both principles really aim at the same thing. To be charitable is to
provide the clearest possible interpretation; to be clear is to reason in a way that facilitates
charitable interpretation. So the Principle of Charity and the Principle of Clarity are just two ways of
expressing a more fundamental commitment to rational communication and inquiry.

4. The Burden of Proof Principle

Burden of proof is a legal standard that requires parties to demonstrate that a claim is valid or
invalid based on facts and evidence. Burden of proof is typically required of one party in a claim, and
in many cases the party that is filing a claim is the party that must demonstrate that the claim is
valid.

Burden of proof is a legal term that encompasses two connected but separate ideas that for
establishing the truth of facts in a trial before tribunals on the United States: the "burden of
production" and the "burden of persuasion" In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be
correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of producing
evidence of the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required factual and legal elements of its case.
Depending on the type of case, the amount of truth-certainty required will be higher or lower.
Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation.

The Burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of
fact to consider a disputed claim. After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is
being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has
been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different Standards
of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence , where there is just enough
evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.
The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated
with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit , a translation of which in this
context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." The party that does
not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being Correct, they are presumed
to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action.
An example is in an American criminal case, where there is a presumption of innocence by the
defendant. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the
burden of proof off to another party.

5. The Principle of Charity

The Principle of Charity demands that one interprets a speaker's statement(s) in the most rational
way possible. In other words, when ascribing to this principle, you must consider the strongest
possible interpretation of your fellow interlocutor's argument before subjecting it to Evaluation. The
overarching goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing Logical fallacies, irrationality,
or falsehoods to the statement of others when a rational interpretation of that particular statement
exists. Put simply, your default position walking into an argument is that the other person is
intelligent, which will help constrain you to maximize the truth or rationality in their argument.

Simply put, the principle of charity tells you to treat other people as intelligent people. If you treat
people as being intelligent, you will do a better job at evaluating their arguments.

To illustrate the principle of charity, suppose you’re given this argument:

Alex: “The human race has managed to land somebody on Mars and split the atom, therefore,
we should be able to do something simpler, like redistributing the world’s substantial food supplies
so that the poor get plenty.”

Here is an uncharitable way to evaluate the argument: the first premise is false. We haven’t
managed to land somebody on Mars. Since it has a false premise, the argument couldn’t be either
sound or cogent. So it’s a bad argument. Game over. That’s uncharitable to Alex, because everybody
knows that the human race has managed to land somebody, not on Mars, but on the Moon. Surely
Alex also knows that, and must have made a mistake. Instead of dealing with the argument as if it
was about Mars, do a charitable interpretation in which you make the simple correction. The
principle of charity is important when you have suppressed information in arguments.

6. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

Suspended judgment is a cognitive process and a rational state of mind in which one withholds
judgments, particularly on the drawing of moral or ethical conclusions. The opposite of suspension
of judgment is premature judgment, usually shortened to prejudice, or in some philosophical
systems such as Pyrrhonism the opposite is dogma. While prejudgment involves drawing a
conclusion or making a judgment before having the information relevant to such a judgment,
suspension of judgment involves waiting for all the facts before making a decision.

7. The Resolution Principle

This principle requires that an issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the
alternative positions is a structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that
together provide sufficient grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an effective
rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports. Unless one can
demonstrate that the argument has not met these conditions more successfully than any argument
presented for alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its conclusion and consider the issue
to be settled. If the argument is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that
raises new doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is obligated to reopen the issue
for further consideration and resolution.

If the purpose of rational discussion is ultimately to decide what to do or believe, then coming to
closure should happen more often than it does. There are many good arguments out there, and if
good arguments resolve issues, why are not more issues resolved? How much more discussion is
needed, just because some refuse to recognize the force of a good argument? Unfortunately, very
few controversial issues ever come to rational resolution. If you have doubts about this, then ask
yourself when the last time was that you allowed the force of argument to change your mind about
an important issue - even though changing one‘s mind in the face of a good argument should not be
a difficult thing to do for a genuine truth-seeker.
References
1. https://www.coursehero.com/The-Fallibility-Principle
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-seeking
3. https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/tutorial/clarity
4. https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/tutorial/phl4clarity.htm
5. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/communication/7-
principles-ofcommunication-explained
6. https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/the-principle-of-charity

7. http://www.cct.umb.edu/susjudgement

8. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/suspend-judgment

9. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ResolutionPrinciple

10. https://www.jstor.org/stable

11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution