CR02CT/Session 1: Introduction to critical reasoning/Becoming a critical thinker

Critical reasoning or critical thinking is a basic skill that all humans are born with, but which can be sharpened with practice. The better your ability to think critically, the better you will be at making good decisions in your life. The skills involved in critical reasoning will assist you in every area of life and study, whether it is deciding which political candidate to vote for or which job to take.

Keep in mind that the foundation for this course is already embedded in you. You can assess yourself to determine to what extent you have already acquired critical reasoning skills by doing the following exercises:

Activity

Activity 1.2 As was mentioned in the Orientation section to this course, you need to keep a hard copy or a digital journal. This journal will serve as proof of your progress towards becoming a critical thinker. For this activity use your journal and write down what the difference in meaning is between the following statements (it is important to write your opinion down; often we think we have an opinion, but once we have to write it down, we discover that it might be flawed): Everybody is innocent till proven guilty. VERSUS Nobody is guilty until proven not to be innocent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. VERSUS Everything you say may be used against you in a court of law. If you are not religious you are bad. VERSUS If you are religious, you are good. If you do not vote, you may not complain about the outcome. VERSUS People who do not vote have no say. As the economy is on a downslide, we need to save money. VERSUS We need to save money when the economy is on a downslide. Feedback: We think that you need all the above-mentioned skills to figure out the meaning of the statements in Activity 1.2

Reflection

Which of the following skills were required to figure out the meaning of the above statements? Note whether you AGREE or DISAGREE You need to be able to determine how the several parts of an argument relate to each other. You need to have good language skills (understand the language properly). You need the ability to locate and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. You need the ability to locate and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. The entire process of argumentation must be viewed within a certain context.

Activity

Activity 1.3 The following is an experiment in psychology. Read the experiment carefully and then,in your journal, capture your answer to the questions that follow: In the 1970s Stanley Milgram set up an experiment at Yale University in which participants were asked to administer electrical shocks to others. The participants were led to believe that those who were being shocked were taking part in a scientific study to determine the relationship between memory and punishment. The participants had control over how severe the shocks would be, from slight shock to severe shock, and when instructed to do so they were to deliver the appropriate voltage. The participants (the “teachers”) are told that they are to administer the learning test to the “learners” in the other room. When the “learner” responds correctly, the “teacher” continues with the next item. When the “learner” makes a mistake, the “teacher” is instructed to give an electric shock. They must start at the lowest shock level (15 volts) and increase the level each time the “learner” makes a mistake; going up to 30 volts, 50 volts, 150 volts and so on. The participants could not see the people who were being shocked, although when the shocks were severe they could hear that their “victims” were suffering greatly. The “teacher” is a naïve subject who has come to the psychology laboratory to participate in the experiment. The “learner”, or “victim”, is an actor who actually receives no electric shock at all. Milgram designed the experiment to establish how far a person will proceed in a concrete situation in which he or she is instructed to inflict increasing pain on others just because a legitimate authority asked them to so. The point of the experiment was thus to find out at what point the subject will refuse to obey the instructions of the experimenter. The results showed that more than half the participants were prepared to, and actually gave, the most severe shocks and nearly 90 per cent increased the voltage when they were asked to, in spite of clearly hearing that their “victims” were in pain. Milgram (1974:5–6) observes the following with regard to his experiment: “Many subjects will obey the experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the person being shocked, no matter how painful the shocks seem to be, and no matter how much the victim pleads to be let out. … It is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study … ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority”. What do you think this experiment illustrates? What lessons have you learnt from the experiment? Do you think that those participants ho increased the voltage when they were asked to, despite the fact that their “victims” were obviously in pain, thought critically about their decisions? Feedback: We think Milgram’s experiment illustrates how readily we are prepared to relinquish reason for the comfort of obedience. It is an example of how easily we take things for granted and assume that the claims of authority figures are true. The lesson to be learnt from the experiment is that we should be suspicious of the claims of authorities, rather than following their instructions blindly. As critical reasoners we should learn how to think independently, and critically question information and knowledge claims.