Attachments:
Critical
Thinking, also known as Dialectic, is the method of philosophy. It is a method
applicable only to open questions, that is, questions that are not answerable
by means of observation or calculation. In this regard it is applicable both to
private open questions - which, because of their private, particular nature,
cannot be considered philosophical - as well as public, or general question -
that is, ones which require no special knowledge or information about
particulars in order to be answered.
The method of
Critical Thinking consists of a method of framing issues and testing
conclusions which is similar to the deductive manner in which science frames
theories and then tests hypotheses deduced from them. The main difference is
that science deals only with questions that can be answered by observation and
calculation, i.e. closed questions, while Dialectic only. deals only with open
questions.
In a wider
sense, critical thinking can be described as deductively framed argumentation.
In this sense, the method of science is embraced within Critical Thinking.
The
Dialectic Method/Essay Format
Philosophy
proceeds by the presentation and development of arguments
regarding controversial general open questions.
To “take a
position for the sake of argument” means to present an argument for or
against a controversial thesis, regardless of whether or not you’ve decided
that you subscribe to that argument.
To present an
argument means
i. to state a thesis - negative or affirmative;
and
ii. to state a rationale for that thesis.
A rationale is
a set of premises which, together, entails the thesis, i.e. the
conclusion of the argument. This means that the premises must be such that, if
they are all true, then the conclusion has to be true as well.
There are two
kinds of premise that are included in any rationale:
1. formal, or “major” premise, and
2. material, or “minor” premise.
A material
premise is the evidence for the conclusion. It is the most likely kind
of premise to be stated; the least likely to be a “hidden” premise.
A formal premise
is a “connecting” premise: it connects the evidence deductively to the
conclusion; i.e. it expresses the intended deductive relationship between the
evidence and the conclusion.
A formal premise
is the most likely kind of premise not to be stated, i.e. to remain “unstated”
or “hidden”.
Every
well-presented argument has at least one material premise and at least one
formal premise.
The way to
construct an argument is backwards:
n First,
think of the conclusion you want to argue for - for the sake of
argument.
n Next, think of the strongest evidence
that there is to support that conclusion.
n Thirdly, express the deductive
connection between the conclusion and the evidence.
To develop an
argument is to defend it, then criticize it, then try to rebut
the criticism against it, then assess whether the rebuttal effectively
handles the criticism.
To defend an
argument is to do two things:
i. provide explanatory (not dictionary) definitions for pivotal terms
in the premises.
ii. advocate for the truth of each of the
premises.
Notes:
1. Each definition should be in a paragraph by
itself, and each premise should be advocated for in a separate paragraph. You
should try to defend more than one premise at a time.
2. The conclusion is not to be defended,
since it is already taken care of by the
premises.
To criticize an
argument is more succinct: it is simply to turn the tables and try to say
why one of the premises of the argument
- the one most vulnerable to criticism - may actually be false, or at least
dubitable. This should take a good-sized
paragraph. Be careful in your criticism to remain patient and not try to turn
back to rebuttal of the criticism too quickly.
To rebut
criticism is to turn the tables on the criticism and try to say how the
criticism fails to refute the argument. This also should be a good-sized
paragraph. It should be based on new insight and not merely be a restatement of
the defense.
To assess
an argument in this context is to judge whether the rebuttal overcomes the
criticism or not. This can be done in a paragraph, either before or in
concluding. If done in concluding, the concluding paragraph should be a
good-sized paragraph.
This, in short, is the method of dialectic
reasoning, and that is what justifies it as the format for philosophical essays. In real life the
method is reiterative, where there may be several rounds of criticism and
rebuttal, then revised presentation of
the argument, etc.
In this class, I
ask you to go each of the steps once per paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment