The Term of Critical Thinking - Assignment Example

Critical Thinking of the of the Dare: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Background 3 Discussion 3 Background The term critical thinking (CT) is being widely used in philosophy while Browne & Keeley (2012) have also explored philosophical and social aspects of critical thinking (CT) (Priest, 2003). Thayer-Bacon (2000) pointed out that different scholars defined CT from different perspective and for this reason; it is very difficult to establish standardized definition of CT. According to Thayer-Bacon (2000), critical thinking composites issues such as, use of imagination, logical analysis of information, active emotional participation, seek detailed background information of a phenomenon and filtering the information and judgmental implication of human cognition. In such context, Browne & Keeley (2012) developed stepwise method for critical thinking. As part of stepwise methodology, 10 to 11 questions are being identified by Browne & Keeley (2012) and they suggested that these questions can work as stepping done for critical thinking process. In this paper, the researcher will use SAG-AFTRA Nevada Local memo as study sample while question based critical thinking (CT) approach mentioned by Browne & Keeley (2012) will be used for analysis. Discussion What Are the Issue and the Conclusion? The letter was written by director human of resource SAG AFTRA Nevada Local to its respective president discussing Al Jazeera America’s (AJAM) termination of union member employment contract on the ground of defamation by prior employer, FOX News. The employee (legal name, Eugenia Glover) was working as news editor in FOX news shows from 1999-2005. Eugenia Glover showed sheer amount of unprofessionalism while editing “The O’Reilly Factor hosted by Bill O’Reilly” in May 2005. In the show, Bill O’Reilly discussed about child abuse laws and Eugenia Glover failed to edit some contradictory comments presented by the speaker and as a result, Bill O’Reilly was being alleged as for spinning (casting fact in such a manner that can strengthen one’s argument and weaken opponent’s argument) and misrepresenting facts. In such context, Eugenia Glover was terminated from job of news editor within 6 days after (The O’Reilly Factor” show was aired on 16/05/2005. In the next 8 years, Eugenia Glover applied for almost 400 jobs in each context; her application was rejected on the ground of her performance in FOX news. However, she managed to grab a job in Al Jazeera America’s (AJAM) on 1/12/2013 (prior to background professional history and previous employment details check being completed) and on 20/12/2013, she was again terminated from job responsibility after Al Jazeera America’s (AJAM) completed prior work experience checking. In such context, Eugenia Glover planned to file lawsuit against FOX news for interfering her ability to work and also against AJAM for wrongful termination. She has also planned to appear with her attorney on national news media outlet (“Good Morning America”, “Entertainment Tonight” etc) and publicize her perspectives to audience. SAG AFTRA is a union that protects interest of entertainers, media persons, news anchors, media artists etc. Subsequently, attorney of Eugenia Glover approached SAG AFTRA union members to support her perspective. Worst case is that in the attorney notification, attorney of Eugenia Glover harshly criticized role of SAG AFTRA for not supporting the interest of Eugenia Glover. Director human of resource SAG AFTRA requested president not to support Eugenia Glover and as assurance, the president would expect at least 73% of vote from members supporting the decision of SAG AFTRA for debuting Eugenia Glover’s lawyer’s proposal. Consideration of philosophical critical thinking approach of Russell (2001), it can be said that issues regarding Eugenia Glover case should be analyzed with clear objective context rather than using subjective norms. Therefore, in the next section, the researcher will analyze the topic on the basis of its objective merit. What Are the Reasons? Browne & Keeley (2012) stated that in order to boost critical thinking, researchers need to analyze validity and soundness of reasons being presented in the arguments. In the letter, director human of resource SAG AFTRA Nevada Local stated that the union should not support the ill intention of Eugenia Glover and her greedy attorney due to three reasons, Reason 1- Eugenia Glover is misfit as media artist while objective of SAG AFTRA is to support best of talent, Reason 2- due unprofessional attitude of Eugenia Glover, respected Bill O’Reilly of FOX news was insulted and his public image was negatively impacted and Reason 3- supporting Eugenia Glover would offend FOX news and AJAM and as result, SAG AFTRA would need to deal with legal proceedings from FOX news and AJAM that can negatively impact financial health of the institution. In the academic paper, Lipman (2003) suggested that researchers need to test the validity of reasons in context to empirical evidences or on the basis of cognitive intelligence. In the next section, the researcher will try to find ambiguity in the reasons being presented by director human of resource SAG AFTRA Nevada Local. What Words or Phrases Are Ambiguous? In the argument, the third reason can be justified because director human of resource SAG AFTRA gave statistical and empirical evidences in support but in case of reason 2 and reason 1, lots of ambiguous assumptions are being used. Ambiguity 1- in letter, it is being stated that Ms. Glover is weak mime, unpopular DJ and worse news editor but the author never bothered about giving sufficient evidences before making some assumptions. Ambiguity 2- in the letter, it is being stated that not famous and not successful people do not pay their union duty but statistical evidences for such claim is not being presented. Ambiguity 3- it is quite evident that Bill O’Reilly made some controversial statement in the show while in the letter, it is being stated that Ms. Glover is only responsible for making the show host (Bill O’Reilly) look foolish. On practical ground, controversial statement made by Bill O’Reilly is actually responsible for making the show host (Bill O’Reilly) look foolish. Ambiguous and loaded words like “members will lose their pride”, “disservice to members”, “best of the best”, “Everyone knows Mr. Oreilly….one of the smartest people….” etc. These languages are being used to influence decision of readers (Burbach, Matkin & Fritz, 2004). Due to such ambiguity in the reasoning, the researcher is being reluctant in accepting the author’s conclusion. What Are the Value Conflicts and Assumptions? It has been found that reasons and conclusions used by the author is not only flawed but also creates moral concerns. 1- In the reasons, the author never suggested the president to investigate the action and non-partiality of FOX news action on termination of Ms. Glover and identify who should be responsible for the predicament at the show either Bill O’Reilly or Ms. Glover. 2- In the reason, the author intentionally tried to defame Ms. Glover using the term weak mime, unpopular DJ and worse news editor without providing sufficient justifications. These terms without justifications sound pretty lame for reaching conclusions. 3- The author used bribery terms like “members would vote for you” to influence readers and ambiguous assumptions like “supporting Ms. Glover would cause bankruptcy for SAG AFTRA” is also being used as reasons. Such types of descriptive assumptions and morally affecting (supporting wrong value system) arguments have increased the reluctance of the researcher to accept it (Daly, 2001). What Are the Descriptive Assumptions? There are lots of descriptive assumptions in the letter and it is not possible to cover them all in this short space. The researcher will explain two of these descriptive assumptions. Example 1- “everyone knows that unsuccessful and not famous people do not pay their bill and descriptive assumption is that all unsuccessful and not famous people are payment defaulters and wrong doers. Example 2- Bill O’Reilly is genius because he is leaders genius group MENSA and descriptive assumption is that intelligent people can never does wrong things (eg. using controversial terms in show). Such descriptive assumptions have certainly decreased validity and logical flow of argument. Are There Any Fallacies in the Reasoning? The author used the fallacy that FOX news and AJAM would go for costly legal proceedings against SAG AFTRA if it supports Eugenia Glover and legal proceedings can bankrupt the SAG AFTRA. That is a fallacy in the name of reasoning because the author used speculations to generate fear in the mind of reader and no statistical or meta-analytic discussion or probabilistic financial data are being provided in support of the claim (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). How Good Is the Evidence? Most of the evidence is based on subjective feelings, vague assumptions and non specific proves. For example, the author has not provided evidences why Ms. Glover is weak mime, unpopular DJ and worse news editor. Secondly, evidences for bankruptcy situation for SAG AFTRA caused by legal proceedings by FOX news and AJAM are not being provided. Rather, subjective terms like “everyone knows…” are being used as evidences. Therefore, evidences provided by the author do not classify as good. Are There Rival Causes? Author pointed out that Eugenia Glover was terminated by FOX news due to her unprofessionalism and poor editing skill as news editor. Alternate explanation is that Bill O’Reilly used some controversial phrases in actual case and as a result FOX news faced criticism. In order to save reputation of Bill O’Reilly (prime time show host) and the news channel, FOX news used Eugenia Glover as scapegoat and terminated her. There are possibilities FOX news even played trick during employment history checking of Eugenia Glover in other organization in order to defame her. Due to presence of such alternate reasoning, the researcher is reluctant in accepting the argument blindly. Are the Statistics Deceptive? Yes, statistics being presented in the letter is deceptive in nature. The author stated that legal costs of doing business adds 21.3% of total of hidden cost to product and service transaction in the country but the author never specified issues like category of these legal proceedings, actual implication for institutions like SAG AFTRA, previous legal proceedings FOX news and AJAM by cost of legal proceedings. Without clustering the statistics on the basis of above category, mentioned statistics are mere deception in the name of data driven evidence. What Significant Information Is Omitted? In the argument, information regarding work behavior, work achievements and performance of Eugenia Glover during her tenure in FOX news being omitted. Without this information, capability and work ethics of Eugenia Glover cannot be measured in unbiased manner. Information regarding actual outcome and cost of legal proceedings FOX news and AJAM is also being omitted. Information regarding previous wrongful employee termination by FOX news and AJAM is also being omitted. What Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible? As possible conclusion, it is being suggested for president of SAG AFTRA Nevada Local to call Eugenia Glover and her perspective. Then, conduct investigation on the transparency of termination action taken by FOX news in 2005. It is also being suggested to president of SAG AFTRA to conduct investigation on transparency AJAM’s procedure for employee history and background checking. Information regarding work behavior, work achievements and performance of Eugenia Glover during her tenure in FOX news should also be accessed and analyzed. After doing such steps, president of SAG AFTRA would be in justified position to support or not to support Eugenia Glover. References Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2012). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Burbach, M., Matkin, G., & Fritz, S. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in an introductory leadership course utilizing active learning strategies: A confirmatory study. College Student Journal, 38(3). Daly, W. M. (2001). The development of an alternative method in the assessment of critical thinking as an outcome of nursing education. Journal of advanced nursing, 36(1), 120-130. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications Ltd. Priest, G. (2003). What is philosophy? Paper presented at the Paper presented at an Inaugural Lecture delivered at the University of Melbourne., University of Melbourne. Russell, B. (2001). The problems of philosophy. London: Oxford University Press. Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking: Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press. Read More