Critical thinking for Students Read Online Free Page A
Author: Roy van den Brink-Budgen
1916 and sank. The Olympic carried on for 24 years, sailing until it was ‘retired’.
Has evidence from the wreck of the Titanic been found to support the weak rivets explanation?
Yes. It was always expected that a large gash in the bow would have been found, caused by the iceberg tearing into the metal. However, this is not the case. There are six narrow slits in the bow where the metal plates have parted, allowing water to rush in.
What other explanations have been given for why the Titanic sank?
There are plenty of these. They include the unusually large number of icebergs in April 1912, the lack of binoculars to see icebergs, and the calmness of the sea (so that there were no waves to be seen breaking on the iceberg). You can look for further explanations. (Indeed, it is very likely that the Titanic sank for a number of reasons.)
Interestingly, we have an example here in which a large number of possible explanations can be seen as being part of ‘the explanation’. Our previous work on left-handed US presidents is also very likely to fit with this type of explanation. An explanation made up of a series of contributory explanations has implications forany inferences drawn from it. Thus, an inference on the claim about the high proportion of left-handed US presidents will have to be judged against the range of possible explanations for the claim.
We can now see explanations as a way of focusing us on to the significance of evidence-claims. By doing this, they help us to draw useful inferences and to assess inferences that others have drawn.
Where we have (or use) only one explanation for evidence, then this sequence will follow:
Evidence-claim + explanation → inference
Where we have more than one explanation for evidence, then more than one inference could be drawn, depending on which explanation is used.
Evidence-claim + explanation 1 → inference 1
Evidence-claim + explanation 2 → inference 2
(and so on)
Where we have (and use) more than one explanation for evidence, then the inference will be drawn accordingly.
+ explanation 1
Evidence-claim
+ explanation 2 →
inference
+ explanation 3
In an important sense, inference must wait its turn until explanation allows it in. Explaining evidence-claims is necessary to give them a significance, which is then made concrete by inference.
We’ve now restored explanations to their rightful place at the heart of Critical Thinking. What we’ve seen is that, until we’ve looked at explanations, we very often can’t do much with a claim.
What follows is an opportunity for you to do some explanation work with another evidence-claim.
Here’s the evidence for you to consider.
35 per cent of US and 20 per cent of UK entrepreneurs are dyslexic.
What else do you need to know to see if this evidence is, in any way, significant?
If it is significant, what might be an explanation for it?
Given an explanation, is there any inference that could be drawn from it? (Therefore what?) (You can find some analysis to help you on p.112.)
INFERENCES
In the previous chapter we saw that, by looking at evidence-claims and their significance, we highlighted the importance of explanations. And, by highlighting explanations, we found that we opened the door to inference. Indeed, for inference to force its way in before explanations have opened the door risks inferences that have considerable problems.
This point is particularly well illustrated with predictions, where we find explanations have an especially important role. Indeed, with prediction-claims, explanations move forwards as the starting point, such that the prediction itself is the inference.
You will remember the example we gave in Chapter 1.
There is a baby already born today that will live until it’s 250.
You can see that this prediction can be viewed as an
Has evidence from the wreck of the Titanic been found to support the weak rivets explanation?
Yes. It was always expected that a large gash in the bow would have been found, caused by the iceberg tearing into the metal. However, this is not the case. There are six narrow slits in the bow where the metal plates have parted, allowing water to rush in.
What other explanations have been given for why the Titanic sank?
There are plenty of these. They include the unusually large number of icebergs in April 1912, the lack of binoculars to see icebergs, and the calmness of the sea (so that there were no waves to be seen breaking on the iceberg). You can look for further explanations. (Indeed, it is very likely that the Titanic sank for a number of reasons.)
Interestingly, we have an example here in which a large number of possible explanations can be seen as being part of ‘the explanation’. Our previous work on left-handed US presidents is also very likely to fit with this type of explanation. An explanation made up of a series of contributory explanations has implications forany inferences drawn from it. Thus, an inference on the claim about the high proportion of left-handed US presidents will have to be judged against the range of possible explanations for the claim.
We can now see explanations as a way of focusing us on to the significance of evidence-claims. By doing this, they help us to draw useful inferences and to assess inferences that others have drawn.
Where we have (or use) only one explanation for evidence, then this sequence will follow:
Evidence-claim + explanation → inference
Where we have more than one explanation for evidence, then more than one inference could be drawn, depending on which explanation is used.
Evidence-claim + explanation 1 → inference 1
Evidence-claim + explanation 2 → inference 2
(and so on)
Where we have (and use) more than one explanation for evidence, then the inference will be drawn accordingly.
+ explanation 1
Evidence-claim
+ explanation 2 →
inference
+ explanation 3
In an important sense, inference must wait its turn until explanation allows it in. Explaining evidence-claims is necessary to give them a significance, which is then made concrete by inference.
We’ve now restored explanations to their rightful place at the heart of Critical Thinking. What we’ve seen is that, until we’ve looked at explanations, we very often can’t do much with a claim.
What follows is an opportunity for you to do some explanation work with another evidence-claim.
Here’s the evidence for you to consider.
35 per cent of US and 20 per cent of UK entrepreneurs are dyslexic.
What else do you need to know to see if this evidence is, in any way, significant?
If it is significant, what might be an explanation for it?
Given an explanation, is there any inference that could be drawn from it? (Therefore what?) (You can find some analysis to help you on p.112.)
INFERENCES
In the previous chapter we saw that, by looking at evidence-claims and their significance, we highlighted the importance of explanations. And, by highlighting explanations, we found that we opened the door to inference. Indeed, for inference to force its way in before explanations have opened the door risks inferences that have considerable problems.
This point is particularly well illustrated with predictions, where we find explanations have an especially important role. Indeed, with prediction-claims, explanations move forwards as the starting point, such that the prediction itself is the inference.
You will remember the example we gave in Chapter 1.
There is a baby already born today that will live until it’s 250.
You can see that this prediction can be viewed as an
Readers choose
Jose Rodriguez
F. R. Tallis
Shannan Albright
Paul Doherty
Judith Tarr
Stella Gibbons
Isabel Jordan
Parker Francis
Hayley Nelson
Ciara Gold, Michael Davis