Critical Thinking

1. Some thoughts on why or how…

5.  Item #1 - A new analysis finds that the Milky
Way is 50% larger than previous estimates,
and has a rippled or corrugated shape.
 Item #2 - Recent estimates indicate that the
MilkyWay contains more stars than the rest
of the local group combined.
 Item #3 Astronomers have discovered nine
new dwarf galaxies orbiting the MilkyWay.
Skeptics' Guide to the Universe - March 14, 2015 Podcast

6.  Item #1 - A new analysis finds that the Milky
Way is 50% larger than previous estimates,
and has a rippled or corrugated shape.
 Item #2 - Recent estimates indicate that the
MilkyWay contains more stars than the rest
of the local group combined.
 Item #3 - Astronomers have discovered nine
new dwarf galaxies orbiting the MilkyWay.
Skeptics' Guide to the Universe - March 14, 2015 Podcast

8. University of
Cambridge
10 Mar 2015
Welcome to the
neighborhood: new
dwarf galaxies
discovered in orbit
around the Milky
Way

9.  How many supernovas were
discovered in 2014?
 Answer: 137 (2014A – 2014EG)

10. The power of COPPER, how and why…
With COPPER… “Quantum physics is inherent in ephemeral reality"
With COPPER…“Your body grows through karmic opportunities"
With COPPER…"Your movement projects onto mortal self-knowledge"
Only today… I am including a MAGNET (very limited)
With MAGNETISM…"Awareness differentiates into a symbolic
representation of actions"
Copper and Magnetism = Success
$74.99
Or 3 Payments of $42.99
+ Shipping and Handling
MADE INTHE USA

11. For more wisdom, visit: www.wisdomofchopra.com/

12. The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of
our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted,
partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced.Yet
the quality of our life and that of what we produce,
make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our
thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money
and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however,
must be systematically cultivated.
Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to CriticalThinking Concepts andTools, Foundation for CriticalThinking Press, 2008)

13.  Understand the logical connections between ideas.
 Identify, construct and evaluate arguments.
 Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
 Solve problems systematically.
 Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
 Reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values.
CriticalThinkingWeb
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It
includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent
thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the
following:

14.  Critical thinking should not be confused with
being argumentative or being critical of other
people.
 Although critical thinking skills can be used in
exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical
thinking can also play an important role in
cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks.
 Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge,
improve our theories, and strengthen
arguments.
 We can use critical thinking to enhance work
processes and improve social institutions.
CriticalThinkingWeb

15.  Marketing and Advertising
 Politics
 News
 Food and Nutrition
 MedicalTreatment
 Scientific Findings
 Pseudoscience
Carl Sagan, The Demon - HauntedWorld: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Use your CriticalThinking skills to evaluate:

16. "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary
evidence".

18. 30 years ago the average city dweller saw up to
2,000 advertising messages per day.Today, this
number has soared to over 5,000…
Yankelovich Marketing and NewYorkTimes (2007)
This figure has been highly scrutinized, though estimates range
from a low of 1,200 to a high of 5,000.
Complaints about advertising clutter date back at least as far as 1759, when
Samuel Johnson wrote, “Advertisements are now so numerous that they
are very negligently perused, and it is therefore become necessary to gain
attention by magnificence of promises, and by eloquence sometimes
sublime and sometimes pathetic.”

19.  Supermarket eggs have been stamped with your
favorite CBS shows.
 Airline trays bear the Rolex logo.
 Walt Disney marketed a children's DVD on
pediatricians examination tables.
 In San Francisco “Got Milk” billboards emitted a
chocolate chip cookie odor at bus stops.
 Name brand items are placed inTV shows and
movies.
 Targeted Internet Ads on your favorite web
page.

20. Believe it or not; Politicians sometimes do not tell
the truth…
PolitiFact is an independent fact-checking
journalism website aimed at bringing you the
truth in politics. PolitiFact's reporters and editors
fact-check statements from theWhite House,
Congress, candidates, advocacy groups and
more, rating claims for accuracy on ourTruth-O-
Meter.

22. Pick your favorite;Almost every news source has
some form of BIAS…

23. Recently, several prominent news anchors have
been under fire…

25. Vani Hari a.k.a. Food Babe
 American author and
activist.
 Degree in Computer
Science (University of
North Carolina at
Charlotte).
 Food Babe Blog with 52
million views in 2014 (per
Hari).

26.  In 2011 she claimed that Chick-fil-A
sandwiches were dangerous.They responded
in 2013 by removing dyes, corn syrup and
TBHQ from their products.
 In 2014 she launched a change.org campaign
asking Subway to remove azodicarbonamide
from their sandwich bread. Claiming that
azodicarbonamide is bad, since it can also be
found inYoga Mats. Subway changed its
recipe.

27.  In 2014, she launched another campaign on
change.org asking Kraft Foods to remove
FD&C yellow #5 and #6 from their Mac and
Cheese. Kraft Foods reformulated their
classic Mac and Cheese last week, removing
these dyes.
 In June of 2014, she posted a petition asking
major beer brewers to list the ingredients of
their products, many complied.

28. “she gets the science wrong” and she “oversold
dangers” and “misreads studies…”
Aaron Huertas
Science Communication Officer
Union of Concerned Scientists

29. “Hari does not have any sort of degree in food science or
chemistry, but that does not seem to be an impediment
when it comes to telling us that “we are getting conned by
cheap, toxic chocolate” or that our beer is chock full of
“shocking ingredients” or that “butter is secretly ruining
our health.”
“It isn’t hard to deconstruct her arguments, most of them are
so silly. Her basic tenet is guilt by association.”
Dr. Joe Schwarcz
Office for Science in Society
McGill University

30. “She takes facts that may be technically true,
but then she runs with it and goes down
roads that are inappropriate and frankly
misleading,” he says. “There’s facts there, but
then they’re misinterpreted.”
Dr.William Schaffner
Chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine
Vanderbilt University

31.  IsThe Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are
Speaking Out, NPR
 Evolution of Food Babe: From misguided consumer
advocate to crude bully, Genetic Literacy Project
 Vani Hari, a.k.a. “The Food Babe,” finally responds to
critics, David Gorski
 Letter to the Food Babe by students in training at the
IFT Student Association posted on Science Meets
Food
 Anti-GMO activist Food Babe tries to do good things
but arguments are ‘silly’, Charlotte Observer
 FOOD BABE: POT, MEET KETTLE,The Farmer’s
Daughter

34. Mehmet Oz a.k.a. Dr. Oz
 Cardiothoracic Surgeon,
author, and television
personality.
 Harvard University (A.B.)
University of
Pennsylvania (M.D.,
M.B.A.).
 Dr. Oz Show (~3.5 million
viewers).

35.  Vice-Chair and Professor of Surgery at Columbia
University.
 Director Cardiovascular Institute and
Complementary Medicine Program at NewYork
Presbyterian Hospital.
 Achieved fame in 2009 on the OprahWinfrey
Show.
 Forbes magazine’s Most Influential Celebrity list
(2010-2014), Time magazine’s 100 Most
Influential People and Esquire magazine’s 75
Most Influential People of the 21st Century.

36.  Homeopathy
 Weight Loss
Products
 Reiki
 Acupuncture
 Psychics (John
Edward andTheresa
Caputo)
 Food (Nutrition)
 Detoxification
 GMO
 Faith Healing
 Essential Oils
 Supplements (of
every variety)
 Anti-Aging
everything

37. Product Dr. Oz said what…
Forskolin “Lightning in a bottle” and “a miracle flower.”
Raspberry Ketones “A number one miracle in a bottle to burn your
fat.”
Yakon Syrup “A metabolism game-changer.”
Saffron Extract “Miracle appetite suppressant.”
Additional Miracle Fat Fighting Products Include: Sea Buckthorn, Capsiberry,
Garcinia Cambogia, African Mango Seed, and Green Coffee Bean extract.
Any product that is mentioned on Dr. Oz’s show is
almost guaranteed to be a mega-success! A
phenomenon now known as “the Oz effect.”

38. On June 17th, 2014 Dr. Mehmet C. Oz testified on Capitol Hill before
a Senate subcommittee hearing on protecting consumers from
false and deceptive advertising of weight loss products.

39. Senator McCaskill:
“I can’t figure this out, Dr. Oz. I don’t get why you need to say
this stuff when you know it’s not true,”When you have this
amazing megaphone, why would you cheapen your show?”
Dr. Oz:
“I actually do personally believe in the items I talk about on
the show. I passionately study them. I recognize that
oftentimes they don’t have the scientific muster to present
as fact. Nevertheless, I would give my audience the same
advice I give my family, and I have given my family these
products.”

40. In December of 2014 the British Medical Journal released
a Media Study titled:
Televised medical talk shows—what they
recommend and the evidence to support their
recommendations: a prospective observational study

41. BMI Media Study –The basics
The purpose of this study was to determine quality of health
recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk
shows. Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes each of The
Dr. Oz Show and The Doctors from 2013.
The researchers identified and evaluated all recommendations
made on each program.A group of experienced evidence
reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team,
evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from
each show.

42. Of the 80 randomly selected recommendations made by
the Dr. Oz show:
46% were supported by evidence.
15% contradicted found evidence.
39% no evidence was found.
Overall, Believable or somewhat believable evidence
supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz
Show
The Results wereTROUBLING
The Doctors faired only slightly better…

43. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrityTV host, vigorously defended the medical
advice he dispenses on his show, striking back onThursday against
physicians who called his faculty position at Columbia University
“unacceptable” in an email to the school last week.
During an episode of his syndicated daytime talk program, “The Dr. Oz
Show,” that was broadcast onThursday, Dr. Oz said his critics were
attacking his freedom of speech.
“I vow to you right here and right now, we will not be silenced,” he said.
Dr. Oz, who is the vice chairman of Columbia’s surgery department, also
defended the advice he shares on his show.
The NewYorkTimes, Dr. Oz Responds to Critics on HisTelevision Show
By Sydney Ember – April 23, 2015

44. Last week, 10 doctors sent an email to the university contending that Dr.
Oz promoted “quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal
financial gain.”
Dr. Oz attacked the credibility of the doctors who criticized him.
The show said that several of the doctors who signed the email “have big
ties to big industry.”The show specifically highlighted Dr. Henry I. Miller,
a fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy at the Hoover
Institution, which is part of Stanford University, who sent the email, for
his vocal support of genetically modified foods and connection to the
American Council on Science and Health, a pro-industry lobbying group.
The NewYorkTimes, Dr. Oz Responds to Critics on HisTelevision Show
By Sydney Ember – April 23, 2015

45. Dr. Oz attacked the
credibility of the
doctors who
criticized him.

46. In 1989, the number of newspapers with a
weekly science section was 95. By January
of 2013, that number was down to just 13.
This makes both
Albert and I very
SAD…
Columbia Journalism Review

48. The
Modern
Science
News
Cycle

50. False Balance – A big problem without trained
Scientific Journalists
False balance, also referred to as false equivalence, is a real or
perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being
more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence
actually supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments
out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side.
•Man-made vs. Natural Climate Change
•Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
•Vaccines vs. Autism

52.  Alien Encounters
 The DefinitiveGuide to Aliens
 NASA’s Unexplained Files
 SharkWeek
 UFO Europe, Untold Stories
 Ghost Hunters
 A Haunting
 Finding Bigfoot (Larry’s Favorite)

53. SharkWeek on the Discovery Science Channel was called to the
table (by many marine biologists) for outright lying…
“The Monster Shark Lives featured
actors playing scientists, photo
shopped pictures, and fake digital
video. At no point in the
documentary did it mention that it
was fictional, causing many
viewers to believe that these
animals are still alive.”
David Shiffman, Slate Magazine

54.  Bigfoot /
Chupacabra
(Larry’s Favorite)
 Health Bracelets
(Really)
 The Mayan
Calendar
 Alien Abduction
 ESP
 Bermuda
Triangle
 Psychic Anything
 Exorcists
 Faith Healing
 Face of Mars
 Flat Earth
 Moon Landing
Conspiracy
 Perpetual Motion
 Conversion
Therapy
 Feng Shui
 Hypnosis
 PolygraphTest
 Chiropractic
 Crystal Healing
 Reflexology
 TherapeuticTouch
 Crop Circles
 Dowsing
 Quantum
Mysticism
 Acupuncture
REALLY, all of these items are BIG BUSINESS…

55. “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or
grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and
information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing
industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome
technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one
representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when
the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or
knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our
crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical
faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels
good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back
into superstition and darkness...”

56. A primer

57. A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment,
whereby inferences about other people and situations
may be drawn in an illogical fashion.
Wikipedia
A simpler definition…
A cognitive bias is a common tendency to acquire
and process information by filtering it through one's
own likes, dislikes, and experiences.

58.  Confirmation Bias
 In-group Bias
 Status Quo Bias
 Negativity Bias
 Framing Bias
 Correspondence
Bias
 Gambler’s Fallacy
 Post-Purchase
Rationalization
 Neglecting
Probability
 Observational
Selection Bias
Nearly 100 Biases have been observed and defined.

59. Definition -The tendency to interpret new
evidence as confirmation of one's existing
beliefs or theories
Examples
A student who is going to write a research paper may primarily
search for information that would confirm his or her beliefs.The
student may fail to search for or fully consider information that is
inconsistent with his or her beliefs.
A reporter who is writing an article on an important issue may only
interview experts that support her or his views on the issue.

60. Definition - In-group bias, sometimes known as
in-group–out-group bias or in-group favoritism,
refers to a pattern of favoring members of one's
in-group over out-group members.
Examples
When you play on an intramural softball team that meets once a
week, you are part of that softball team's in-group.
It can be something on a much more grand scale like, like the
situation between religious groups in Ireland.

61. Definition - Status quo bias is a preference for
the current state of affairs.The current baseline
(or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and
any change from that baseline is perceived as a
loss.
Examples
Status-Quo Bias often plays a role in the field of economics,
political science, sociology and psychology.

62. Definition -The negativity bias refers to the
notion that, even when of equal intensity, things
of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant
thoughts, emotions, or social interactions) have a
greater effect on one's psychological state and
processes than do neutral or positive things.
Example
Brand Dilution –We tend to tell everyone of a bad purchasing
experience.

63. Definition – A framing bias is a way to spin an
argument in favor of a certain side before even
stating one’s case.
Example
Let’s say you need a surgical procedure and the surgeon tells you
there is a 98% survival rate with the procedure.What if she told you
there was a 2% mortality rate?Would you feel the same way?
Product can have 4% fat or be 96% fat-free.

64. Definition –Correspondence Bias, also known as
the Fundamental attribution error (FAE), is
people's tendency to place an undue emphasis on
internal characteristics to explain someone else's
behavior in a given situation, rather than
considering external factors.
Example
If someone cuts in front of you in line, your immediate reaction is,
"This person is a complete jerk!" But in reality, maybe he never cuts
into lines and is doing it this time (miss a plane, sick relative).

65. “A group of statements, in which some of them
(the premises) are intended to support another
statement (the conclusion)”
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

66. Whether we are consciously aware of it or not,
our arguments all follow a certain basic
structure.They begin with one or more premises,
which are facts that the argument takes for
granted as the starting point.Then a principle of
logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion.
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

67. DeductiveArgument – A deductive argument is
an argument whose conclusion necessarily
follows from the truth of the premises.
InductiveArgument - An inductive argument is
an argument that is intended to provide
“probabilistic support” for its conclusion, but
not logically conclusive support for its
conclusion.

68.  “A deductive argument is an argument whose
conclusion necessarily from the truth of the premises”
 A deductive argument is valid if it is successful in
providing logical support for its conclusion.
 A “valid” deductive argument is such that if all of the
premises are true, it is guaranteed that the conclusion
must be true.This means that is all of the premises are
true, there is no possible way that the conclusion
could be false.
 We say that a deductive argument is invalid if the
truth of the premise does not guarantee that the
conclusion must be true.

69.  In logic, we do not use the word “valid” as a
synonym for true. It is entirely possible for a
valid deductive to be “false”.To claim that
your argument is a “deductively valid
argument” only means that the argument has
necessary logical structure.
 Logical structure doesn’t refer to the actual
contents of an argument, but to its
construction.

70. This structure is often illustrated symbolically
with the following example:
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Premise1: If A = B,
Premise2: and B = C,
Conclusion:Therefore it follows thatA = C

71. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Premise 1: All politicians are liars,
Premise 2: Jim is a politician,
Conclusion:Therefore it follows that Jim is a liar.
Premise 1: All men are mortal,
Premise 2: Socrates is a man,
Conclusion:Therefore it follows that Socrates is
mortal.

72. Premise 1: If Socrates has no teeth, then he is
mortal,
Premise 2: Socrates is mortal,
Conclusion:Therefore: Socrates has no teeth.
The conclusion does not logically follow from the
premises. Each of these arguments attempted to make
a valid deductive argument, but the attempt failed.
Regardless of the order of the premises, these
arguments would be invalid.

73. Premise 1: All politicians are liars,
Premise 2: All used car salesman are liars,
Conclusion:Therefore it follows that all used car
salesmen are politicians.
The conclusion does not logically follow from the
premises. Each of these arguments attempted to make
a valid deductive argument, but the attempt failed.
Regardless of the order of the premises, these
arguments would be invalid.

74.  An inductive argument is an argument that is
intended to provide “probabilistic support”
for its conclusion, but not logically conclusive
support for its conclusion.
 An inductive argument is such that if all of its
premises are true, the conclusion is possibly
true or highly likely to be true, but not
“necessarily” true.

75.  If an inductive argument succeeds in
providing probable (but not logically
necessary) support for its conclusion, then it
is said to be “strong.” If an inductive
argument fails to provide good support for its
conclusion, we call it “weak”.

76.  The argumentative structure of an inductively
strong argument does not guarantee that if
all of the premises are true, the conclusion
must necessarily be true. However, if the
conclusion is “highly probable” then it should
be generally accepted.
 Due to the fact that the truth of an inductive
argument’s cannot be guaranteed by the
truth of its premises, inductive arguments are
not “truth preserving.”

77. Premise 1: Most dogs have fleas,
Premise 2: Bowser is a dog,
Conclusion:Therefore it follows that Bowser
probably has fleas.
Be aware that it is entirely possible for all the premises to be true
in the above inductive argument, and for the conclusion to be
false.
After all, just because most dogs have fleas, doesn’t mean that
Bowser does, because it is possible that he is one of the dogs that
does not have fleas.

78. Premise 1: All pigs can fly,
Premise 2: Charles is a pig,
Conclusion:Therefore it follows that Charles can
fly.
A good deductive argument must have true premises. We say that
a deductively valid argument with true premises is: “sound.”

79.  False Premises and a False Conclusion.
Premise 1: All fish have wings,
Premise 2: All fish are dogs,
Conclusion:Therefore all dogs have wings.
 False Premises and aTrue conclusion.
 True Premises and aTrue Conclusion.

80. Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will
undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can
be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points,
and are often identified because they lack evidence
that supports their claim.
Even when all of the premises of an argument are
reliably true, the argument may still be invalid if the
logic employed is not legitimate – a so-called logical
fallacy.

81. You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place
of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity,
pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically
coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional
aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used
instead of a logical argument.
Example: Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped
liver and Brussels sprouts, but his father told him to think about
the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't
fortunate enough to have any food at all.

82. You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to
attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating
someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own
position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves
to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: AfterWill said that we should put more money into
health and education,Warren responded by saying that he was
surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to
leave it defenseless by cutting military spending.

83. You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually
happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with
the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme
hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such
extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form
of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the
argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated
conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples
to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to
marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

84. You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in
an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking
somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or
personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.The
result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case
without actually having to make an argument.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case
for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience
whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't
married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

85. You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your
claim was shown to be false.
A person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while
taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be
exempt, without providing adequate justification for the
exemption.
Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his
'abilities' were tested under proper scientific conditions, they
magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one
had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

86. You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent
phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.
This commonly believed fallacy can be said to have helped create
an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA.Though the overall
odds of a 'big run' happening may be low, each spin of the wheel
is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may
be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row
if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each
individual flip remain 50/50, and aren't influenced by what
happened before.

87. You said that because an authority thinks something, it must
therefore be true.
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to
dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.Appeals to
authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to
disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth
of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding
and/or access to empirical evidence.
Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true'
Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution
(and presumably isn't a primate).

88. You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to
dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.
In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered
unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is,
one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a
supposedly 'true' example.This kind of post-rationalization is a
way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.
Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their
porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and
puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells
that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

89. Logical Fallacy definitions and examples were contributed by
“thou shalt not commit logical fallacies”
Visit them at www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com

90.  ad hominem
 appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio
 argument from omniscience
 appeal to faith
 appeal to tradition
 argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
 Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)
 argument from adverse consequencesargumentum ad
baculum
 argumentum ad ignorantiam
 argumentum ad populum
 bandwagon fallacybegging the question

91.  circular reasoning
 composition fallacy
 confirmation biasconfusion of correlation and causation
 excluded middle
 half truths
 loaded questions
 meaningless question
 misunderstanding the nature of statistics
 non sequitur
 no true Christianobservational selection
 post hoc, ergo propter hoc

92.  proving non-existence
 red herring
 special pleading
 statistics of small numbers
 straw man
 two wrongs make a right
 Use-mention error

93.  Was the study large enough to pass statistical
muster?
 The number of participants greatly effects the validity
of a study.
 Are the findings of the study statistically significant?
Is there a small chance that the findings were due to
random chance alone?
 The value that is typically used in scientific research is
p = 0.05.This “p-value” means that the probability
that the findings of the study are due to chance alone
is only 1 in 20, or 5%. Many field of study require more
rigorous standards. Physicists use p-values of p=0.001
to validate their findings.
Science-Based Life

94.  Was the study large enough to pass statistical
muster?
 As a general rule, any correlation that has a p-value of
greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05) should not be taken as
evidence for anything.
 Taking a more basic approach, if you were to read in a
study that “the majority of US citizens now reject the
theory of evolution,” you should find out how many
people were in the study.The statistics turn out that if
you have less than around 1,024 people for a
nationwide study, the margin or error exponentially
increases beyond three percent. In study that reports
a 49/51 split, this could render the claim worthless.
Science-Based Life

95.  Is the study it well designed?Could
unintentional bias have affected the results?
 Unless you are an expert, this may be difficult to
ascertain.
 If it was a clinical trial, who were the patients and
how were they selected?
 Was there a control group?Was the sample
population that the study selected representative
of the general population?
Science-Based Life

96.  Is the study it well designed?Could unintentional
bias have affected the results?
 Was the study as “blinded” as possible, meaning that
no one involved with the study knew which condition
was which and who was involved with it?
 Were there any conflicts of interest that should have
been disclosed by the researchers? Funding from a
corporation does not automatically mean that the
results of a study are false, but it is something that
absolutely can bias research.
Science-Based Life

97.  Did it last long enough?
 This question may not apply to some sciences, but
it is especially important when evaluating clinical
trials.
 Did the study run its full course or did it stop when
the results favored the hypothesis?
 Were there any other possible explanations
for the conclusions of the study or reasons to
doubt the findings?
 Remember, correlation does not prove causation.
Science-Based Life

98.  Do the conclusions fit with other scientific
evidence? If not, why?
 Are the results of a study consistent with other
findings in that field?
 Has the study been replicated and confirmed?
 One study does not prove anything.
Science-Based Life

99.  Have the findings been checked by other
experts?
 This is one of the most important questions that
you can ask when looking at a study
 Are there experts who disagree with the claims in
a study? Why or why not?
 Does the researcher have a good track record
when it comes to findings standing up to scrutiny?
Science-Based Life

100.  Have the findings been checked by other
experts?
 Most importantly, as one of the safety nets of
science, has the study been through peer review?
 Is the journal that the study is published in
reputable? A study coming out of an obscure
journal with no peer review, that is to say, no
experts to check over the work of the researchers,
is not necessarily wrong but should be highly
suspect.
Science-Based Life

101. In science it often happens that scientists
say, "You know that's a really good argument;
my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never
hear that old view from them again.They
really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it
should, because scientists are human and
change is sometimes painful. But it happens
every day. I cannot recall the last time
something like that happened in politics or
religion.

102. If you were to take only one single idea from
this presentation…
HELP our CHILDREN by promoting
CRITICALTHINKING
Inform to your School Board, Administrators andTeachers that
you want our next generation to be CRITICALTHINKERS

109. Thank you for
listening to my
presentation.
Randy Cox,Thinker
If you would like a copy of this presentation or have a question, please
email me at randycox16509@yahoo.com