Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Critical thinking F
Ch. 8,5,10,13 key terms
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Advertising | The practice of calling the public’s attention to something to induce them to buy products or services or otherwise change their opinions or behavior. |
| Reasonable skepticisim | An attitude that involves giving up the habit of automatically accepting claims, in the media, rejecting the questionable assumption that most of what is said is true and refusing to believe a claim unless their are legitamite reasons for doing so. |
| Paid Search Ads | Ads are adds that pop up when you look something up and there is an option to buy the item, these typically come up on google, bing, etc, and they are usually sponsered as well |
| Display ads | Theses ads are presented on websites that are related to a product or service that could or could not be targeted towards a certain demographic of people ore towards their behaviors. |
| Social media ads | Ads appear on socail media platforms like facebook, instagram, tiktok, etc these are also usually sponsered or promoted and are paid by advietisers to be displayed on the platforms. |
| Native Advertising | Paid advertising designed to imitate the tone, style, and look of a publication’s editorial or journalistic content. |
| Identification | This is when ads use things that people can identify things easily, like when advertisers use celebritys to sell a product. |
| Slogans | These are catchy phrases that stay in our head and are usually used for stock trade advertising. Ex: In inside out the gum commercial "Triple dent gum will make you smile" is the catchy add in rileys head that her emotions remeber and get annoyed. |
| Misleading comparisons | These are comparison that are used to make a product seem better or more buyable but there is no way to compare if these products are actually better or if they are lower priced, etc. |
| Weasel words | These are used to water down a claim and make it so it is technically true but its superficially misleading, it is like trying to make something sound qualifying when its really not. |
| Political Advertising | biased, mostly propaganda, smeer campaigning used to make people or things look bad. |
| Misrepresentation | Presenting unaltered video in an inaccurate manner misrepresents the footage and misleads the viewer |
| Splicing | splicing is combining of two images or different things that were said to be projected as something that is actually happening but it is actually false and from two different sources. |
| Doctoring | Altering the frames of a video—cropping, changing speed, using Photoshop, dubbing audio, or adding or deleting visual information—can deceive the viewer. |
| enumerative induction | An inductive argument pattern in which we reason from premises about individual members of a group to conclusions about the group as a whole. |
| deductive argument | is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion, being valid or invalid, sound or unsound. |
| inductive argument | is intended to supply only probable support for its conclusion, earning the label of “strong” if it renders its conclusion very likely to be true and “weak” if it fails to provide such support. If the arguements premises are true it is said to be cogent |
| syllogism | refers to the fact that this arguement consists of 3 statements: two premises and a conclusion |
| Target population/target group | the whole collection of individuals under study |
| sample members/sample | the observed members of the target group |
| relevant property/property in question | a property, or characteristic, that is of intrest in the target group |
| Hasty Generalization | The fallacy of drawing conclusions about a target group based on an inadequate sample size. |
| representative sample | a sample that resembles the target group in all relevant ways |
| biased sample | a sample that does not properly represent the target group. |
| to be trully representative | sample must have all the same relative characteristics, same proportions as target group |
| opinion polls | should be strong, have true premises, use a large sample that represents the target population and relevant population features, generate accurate data. |
| random sampling | a sample that is selected randomly from a target group in such a way as to ensure that the sample is representative. Every member of the target group has an equal chance of being selected. |
| Self-selecting sample | An unscientific type of sample in which the members of the sample select themseleves. biased because people choose may be more inclined to give aa specific anwser. |
| question phrasing | can be skewed simply by how questions are worded |
| question ordering | the order of questions can affect poll results questions asked may cause people to anwser following questions specifically based on their previous anwsers or with a speific change/propmt. |
| restricted choices | limited options may cause people to anwser questions specifically even if they don't have a specific opinion or positive or negative reaction towards questions. |
| margin of error | the variation between the values derived from a sample and the true values of the whole target group. |
| confidence level | the probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error |
| Analogy | A comparisson of tow or more things alike in specific respects. |
| Analogical Induction/ arguement by analogy | An arguement making use of analogy, reasoning that because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in some further respect. |
| How do we judge the strength of arguements by analogy | 1.) # of relevant similarites 2.) # of relevant dissimilarites 3.) # of instances compared 4.) Diversity among cases. |
| relevant similarites | the more ___ similarites there are between things being compared the more probable the conclusion. |
| relevant dissimilarities | the more relevant __ or disanalogies there are between things being compared the less proable the conclusion |
| Number of instances compared | the greater the # of instances, or case, that show relevant similarites the stronger the arguement |
| Diversity among cases | If an event happend that led to a conclusion being made that happend several times with different, people, things, etc but all the cases having matching details, its likely that a new cases involving the same kind of case also has the same conclusion. |
| inference to the best explanation | A form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs. |
| Inference to best explanation | is a statement(s) asserting why or how something is the case |
| procedural explanations | they try to explain how something is done or how an action is carried out. |
| interpretative explanations | they try to explain the meaning of terms or state of affairs. |
| functional explanations | they try to explain how something functions |
| theoretical explanations | theories or hypotheses that try to explain why something is the way it is, why something is the case, why something happend. ARE CLAIMS |
| theory requirements | minimum requirement of consistency, internal and external consistency |
| criteria of adequacy | the standards used to judge the worth of explanatory theories. They include testability, frutfulness, scope, simiplicty, and conservatism |
| testable | A criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A testable theory is one in which there is some way to determine whether the theory is true of false |
| Testability | The ability to determine whether or not a theory is true or not. A therory needs to be able to be explained tested and supported by the facts and what is done. If it cannot be tested in measure then the theory does not hold up. |
| Fruitfulness | The ability for a theory to predict the next thing that is about to occur and that happens. It makes you question how this happend and opens you up to exploring different other therories that help prove the theory you predicted. |
| Scope | The ability for what is produced to support a theory that can support other aspects surrounding the theory that you are trying to prove. |
| Simplicity | The simpler the theory the more likely it is to be true if its not trying to prove multiple things and can be explained and understood simple its easier to trust and believe. |
| Conservatism | This is the belief that the best theory is one that can be explained and matches our beliefs, if it relates to our beliefs we have greater reason for trusting the theory. |
| Ad hoc hypothesis | a hypothesis or theory that cannot be verified independently of the phenomenon its supposed to explain. Always makes a theory less simple and therefore less credible. |
| Test Formula | A four-step procedure for evaluating the worth of a theory: Step 1. State the Theory and check for consistency.Step 2. Assess the Evidence for the theory.Step 3. Scrutinize alternative theories.Step 4. Test the theories with the criteria of adequacy. |
| Partisan blindness | strong political affiliation impairs critical thinking, causing people to ignore or distort facts that contradict their beliefs, favor information supporting their side, and view opponents negatively, even rejecting clear evidence like photos. |
| Negative Partisanship | When beliefs are formed primarily because of hate for others |
| You've adopted at least one of these habits of thought | 1.) You reject out of hand any facts, statistics, arguements, or studies that contradict your beliefs. 2.) You wholeheartedly accept significant claims without once asking to see the evidence. |
| You've adopted at least one of these habits of thought | 3.) You think any news that conflicts with your beliefs is automatically fake. 4.)You refuse to seriously consider any view that makes you uncomfortable. |
| You Can’t Defend Your Views Without Relying on Information That Comes Exclusively from Hyperpartisan Sources | The challange is to make your case with facts and evidence derived from trustworthy, least biased sources. If you can't do that then your case is weak |
| Hyperpartisan sources | warp perspectives and distort reality. They are often inaccurate lack credible sourcing feast on unverifiable information, and spout partisan propagands unhinged conspiracies, and fake news |
| motivated reasoning | reasoning for the purpose of supporting a predetermined conclusion, not to uncover the truth, reaching conclusions one wants to reach without obejectivley seeking the truth. |
| motivated reasoning cont. | reasoning done for the purpose of supporting a predetermined conculsion. This means using information that aligns with your existing beliefs to support the conclusion that you want. |
| Appeals to personal certainty | the attempt to prove a claim by appealing to the fact that your certain of it |
| straw man "nutpicking" | taking an extreme member of an opposition group and treating them as representative of the group as a whole |
| straw man, radicalizing the opposition | transofming a modest, qualified proposition from an opposing group into an unqualified radical proposition so it can be more easily attacked or refuted. |
| Whataboutism | the opposing of an accusation by arguing that an opponent is guilty of an equally bad or worse offense. |
| Motivism | dissmising an argument not because the arguement is bad but because you think the arguers motives are bad. |
| You Can’t Talk to Anyone Opposed to Your Views without Insulting Them, Mocking Them, Scolding Them, or Yelling at Them | It is reasonable to be angry with your opponent when you anger comes from a justified cause like when you deeply care about an issue or the people involved. However your anger becomes a sign of hyperpartisanism when it causes your response to turn into a |
| You Can’t Talk to Anyone Opposed to Your Views without Insulting Them, Mocking Them, Scolding Them, or Yelling at Them cont. | heated reaction that blocks you from cleary thinking which will show that your arguement is weak or that you are simply arguing because you fear that you don't want to be wrong and don't want to come to a rational conclusion |
| You Won’t, or Can’t, Distinguish between Legitimate and Illegitimate Reasons for Believing Something | 1) My partisan group (political faction, fans of politician X or pundit Y, online community, etc) trusts this sources. (So I will too.) 2) An opposing group rejects this source. (So I will accept it because I hate the opposing group) |
| You Won’t, or Can’t, Distinguish between Legitimate and Illegitimate Reasons for Believing Something cont. | 3) I reject any claim that comes from partisan sources I don't like. (Because nothing they say can be right.) 4) I have faith in my political leader, and they hate this source. (So I will hate it too, because I believed whatever they say.) |
| Morality | concerns beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, and just and unjust |
| moral theory | our own beliefs about what morality is or is not, what actions are right or wrong, and what things are good or bad |
| worldview | is a philosophy of life,a set of beliefs and theories that helps us make sense of a wide range of issuesin life. It defines for us what exists, what should be, and what we can know |
| moral arguements | has premises and a conclusion. The premises (and sometimes the conclusion) may be implied, not stated,and they may be simple or complex just as in other arguments |
| Moral statement | is a statement asserting that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that something (such as a person or motive)is good or bad. |
| Non-moral statements | do not assert that something is right or wrong - they simply describe a state of affairs without giving it a value one way or the other. |
| other moral principles | The support of another moral principle means that you are using a more general or higher level principle that is generally accepted or credible enough to be accepted to support your arguement, decision, etc. |
| moral theories | moral theory is a general explanation of what makes an action right or wrong. What is percived to be the right or wrong action and based on that what decision we will make based on what a moral theory says about a certain action or decision. |
| considered moral judgements | are moral judgements that we consider to be credible after evaluating them for whether they will be right or wrong. These are well thought out rational decision based on how to act/behave and what to do in a certain situtation. |
| utilitarianism | When a descision is made everyone is considered and the amount of happiness is calculated based on how this will affect who and what. Soley looks to make the best decision to create the most joy for people and based on that the action will be completed. |
| Kantian Ethics | is the decision or going through with an action if it follows moral rules. This means that this action has a logical appeal to it and is considered an action that most people can take because it follows a set of rules then it is permissible. |
Created by:
ansoremy