Enemies of Critical Thinking - Essay Example

? Scholarly Writing Common Sense and Science We make decisions backed by various reasons. For us to make a decision, wehave to attribute that decision to personal belief, science or even common sense. These substantially determine the kind of decisions we make. Mostly, we make decisions backed by our beliefs, or through the guidance of critical thinking. This is because we tend to believe that something is correct because it is "common sense" or it is "intuitively obvious." However, there are substantial differences between common sense and science. In science, any decision made has to rely on tested evidence and factual data, for example psychology. As discussed in (“Psychology as a Science”, 2013), this is because it involves systematic observation, data collection, and data analysis (empiricism), the examination of testable problems, and the falsifiability of result. Information in science should be testable, and people can refer the decision as a fact. A scientific decision goes through different stages such as data collection, data analysis and testing to ensure its authenticity. Scientific decisions only factor in factual data (Pope, 1998). On the other hand, however, common sense does not rely in any form of data or tested information. An individual, basing his or her reasoning on what he believes to be true or as "intuitively obvious" makes a decision about a particular issue. Such a decision lacks any form of data or evidence. Therefore, the decision arrived at could be either true or false. According to (“Psychology as a Science”, 2013), the problem with common sense ideas about behavior is that much of it is contradictory, leaving one to wonder still about the actual answer to some of life’s questions. Common sense involves critical thinking. According to Douglas (2000), critical thinking puts into consideration the importance of beliefs. Since people find it easier to believe than to disbelieve, critical thinking helps them back their reasoning to believe in any decision they come up with. As discussed in (“Psychology as a Science”, 2013), a good critical thinker uses scientific inquiry to discover that both cliches in each dichotomy are unsupported, that only one is supported, or that both are actually supported. Personally, critical thinking helps me in believing what I have learnt or read. It is possible to differentiate between something that is true and one that is untrue by critically analyzing a text by use of prior information. Belief perseverance is the tendency of an individual o hold on to his or her initial belief, even when provided with new information that contradicts the present belief. Paul & Elder (2003) assert that critical thinking involves focusing on the purpose of thinking, questions the thinking is pursuing, the information in use, the assumptions and inferences made, concepts and point of view guiding the thinking and the implications of the thinking. Belief perseverance acts in ignorance with this argument, as here is no way of solving an individual’s decision, despite being acquainted with this knowledge. Personally, I try to use common sense to allow for critical thinking in place of personal belief. With common sense, I know when something is wrong and when right. I cannot interchange these two, to make something right wrong and something wrong right using common sense. References Douglas, N. L. (2000). Enemies of critical thinking: Lessons from social psychology research. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 129–144. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study and learn (Part III). Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 36-37. Pope, K. S. (1998). Pseudoscience, cross-examination, and scientific evidence in the recovered memory controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 4(4), 1160-1181. Psychology as a Science. (2013). [Study notes] Scholarly Writing The author had a good topic of discussion; the personal computer. The author, while introducing the topic, digs a little background information on the evolution of the personal computer. However, there is excessive use of assumptions, while he critically fails in establishing the exact time when the world started evolving towards the use of personal computers. As discussed in (“Video: Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience and Evidence”’ 2013), scholarly writers’ job is to uncover evidence that gives some glimpse of something that at any moment we call the truth. By referring to 50 years ago, when modern technology started to take shape, there was no hope of personal computers, as the author asserts. True, that computer then were heard of, but within the inner circles of the manufacturing companies and developers. As discussed in (“Video: Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience and Evidence” 2013) the purpose of scientific inquiry, that is, scholarly writing, is to be specific, not general, and to work from a scientific, orderly base. Conspicuously in the paragraph though, is the lack of use of reference material, which is essential in any form of academic writing. Guidelines to academic writing require the use of references whenever an author uses any factual data in a text. The author asserts that even the poor people can save and buy a computer for home and school use. However, he/she raises the argument that by 2001, more than 80% of all high school students were “plugged-in.” It is hard to tell whether this is true or false, as there is no reference material accompanying the information. However, even if this was true, then owing to the argument that all families can save and buy a computer for home and school use, then, 100% of the students ought to have been plugged in. A discussion on supports this as discussed on (“Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Finding a Scholarly Voice”, 2013), scholarly writers should rely on solid evidence rather than strong feelings to show the truth of the assertions. This shows a big margin of bias, as the information provided cannot qualify as authentic or true. The author appears to use many personal opinions in the text, contrary to academic writing requirements. As the rules require, factual data and evidence should support personal opinions. His case is however different as the author fails in doing so, and instead draws conclusions from personal opinions. The quality of evidence is also poor, as presented by the author. As discussed in (“Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence”, 2013), evidence involves a convincing assertion of the truth, then, demands convincing evidence, presented objectively and based on logic. Any available evidence backing the author’s opinion is scanty and does not reveal the true state of affairs in the development and ownership of personal computer. Several questions remain unanswered in this text. For instance, what makes the personal affordable to people, even the poor? The author, choosing to address the issue of the use of personal computers in schools, appropriately selected the target audience. The discussion on (“Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence”, 2013), points out that scholarly writers should be aware of the expectations of their audience. Policy makers were the biggest audience the author had in mind, as he looked at the percentage ownership of personal computers in schools. While enacting any form of policies touching on education, policy makers should be aware of the ownership percentages of these personal computers among the students. The policy should incorporate the “un-plugged” percentage. This article also targets students, equipping them with information on the developmental history of the personal computer. References Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Finding a Scholarly Voice. (2013). [Study notes]. Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence. (2013). [Study notes] Video: Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience and Evidence. (2013). [Study notes]. Read More