1. Thoughts on Critical Thinking Gail P. Taylor, Ph.D. MBRS-RISE Program, UTSA 09/23/2013

2. What is Critical Thinking?  An awareness of interrelated critical questions that you employ at appropriate times  Results in systemic, active evaluation of what you read and hear  Influences how you react to information  Accept?  Reject?  Withhold judgment  Must also critically evaluate your OWN conclusions…

3. Approach to Information  Who is presenting the Information?  What is the problem & conclusions?  Where are they presenting it?  Is the foundation/background solid?  Is experimental design appropriate?  Are the data solid and sufficient?  Are their conclusions reasonable?

4. These vary with source  Poster or oral at conference  Scientific paper (peer reviewed)  Scientific grant  Report in pop press about paper  Report in pop press without review  News report in general  Talk shows  Internet rumor mongers

5. What is the Problem and Conclusion  Most can find Problem/Topic/Issue  Most can at least infer a hypothesis - Guess  Conclusions  We conclude that  Results indicate  Consequently  Hence  Therefore  Thus  In short  It follows that  Shows that  Indicates that

6. Who is Presenting?  Presenter:  Are they qualified?  Reputation in field  Is it in their normal field?  What do they have to gain?  Conflicts of interest? Money  Reputation  Ratings

7. Is Foundation/Background Solid?  Where did idea come from?  Literature foundations?  Observations?  Preliminary data?  Are other parts of field ignored?  Are there hidden assumptions?

8. Are Methods/Design Solid?  Experimental Design  Adequate controls  How was data collected?  Correct equipment used correctly  Are better equipment/methods available?  Polls?  Limited populations?  No other variables present  Are stats appropriately chosen?  Average = Mean, median, and mode  Percent increase

9. How reliable are the data presented?  Were all appropriate experiments done?  Are they vague in certain sections of paper or grant?  How much repetition?  How generalizable are they?  Does anything seem left out or hidden?  Are graphs and tables good?  Are fallacious arguments presented?  Slippery slope  Attack the credibility of opponents  Patriotism/Tradition  False Causes (correlations)  Appeal to emotion  Race/Cultural biases  Hasty Generalizations  Threats  Circular Arguments

10. Conclusions  Are they really supported?  Too generalized  Not supported by evidence  Rival explanations