This book is very accessible to all levels of yound adult and adult readers. It is broken down into 12 critial thinking questions that you ask when someone presents you with an argument to determine if the argument makes sense. The process is simple and is very valuable to apply to every situation where some one is trying to influence your opinion. This means arguements, advertisements, articles. It is practical, builds on itself, and presents many examples to test your comprehension and ability to apply the questions. It is a text book of maybe 100 pages and should be used in every school in the world. Bold words, but this is how I feel.
This is pretty good. If you want to know how to think (I know "How to think? That's stupid, but really . . .) then this is a good one. Used this several times. It's a pretty easy read and helps you think critically, logically, to avoid fallacies . . . all the good critical thinking stuff. If you don't know about this stuff and never took the course in high school, it's not only going to help you analyze stories better but think more successfully in work, school, community and more. Essential stuff.
This is an excellent introduction to critical thinking. There is a focus on asking critical questions and on spotting fallacies. This would be perfect for those who are just starting at university or for those in high school who are planning to go to university. However, to be honest, there are a lot of university graduates that could benefit from this as well.
鈥楢sking the right Questions鈥� was a great book for two reasons. First, it provides several relevant examples. Second, the book is concise and only presents essential information. I compare it to Strunk and White鈥檚 鈥楨lements of Style,鈥� the classic grammar reference for avoiding needless fluff or pointless anecdotes. It鈥檚 about 180 pages and provides a great companion book for Paul & Elder鈥檚 鈥楥ritical Thinking: tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life鈥�. The following is a quick list of topics contained in the book: 1. Importance of Critical Thinking 2. Separation of issues from conclusions 3. Identification of ambiguous arguments 4. Identification of assumptions 5. Understanding rational fallacies 6. Evaluation of evidence 7. Looking for rival causes (alternative hypotheses) 8. Evaluation of data I recommend this book for anyone that wants to improve their ability to think through; complex task, research efforts or, the upcoming presidential race. In a world full of sound bites and rapid fire media blitzing it鈥檚 hard to take the time to think through relevant issues. A book like this provides tools we can use to determine what arguments are worth listening too then weight its validity. I plan to practice what was taught in this book. It will help me identify my own biases and preconceived notions and I can use this as a guideline for evaluating my co-workers publications. This book will stay on my desk as a constant reference. Its cover well worn; its contents tabbed and heavily annotated (right next to Elements of Style).
Una dintre c膬r葲ile care ar trebui s膬 fie lectur膬 obligatorie pentru orice persoan膬. Eu, personal, a葯 introduce-o chiar 葯i 卯n sistemul de 卯nv膬葲膬m芒nt, de la cele mai mici clase.
Acest ghid de g芒ndire critic膬 este un instrument foarte concis, clar 葯i conving膬tor, pe care 卯l putem folosi pentru a 卯nv膬葲a cum s膬 g芒ndim critic. M. Neil Browne propune un set de 卯ntreb膬ri, pe care ar trebui s膬 ni le punem de fiecare dat膬 c芒nd suntem 卯ntr-o controvers膬 pentru a putea detecta dac膬 ra葲ionamentul propus de interlocutor este unul corect 葯i, deci, dac膬 ar putea fi adoptat. Aceste 卯ntreb膬ri esen葲iale sunt exemplificate prin diverse exerci葲ii a c膬ror posibile r膬spunsuri le ofer膬 葯i autorul, pentru a s膬ri 卯n ajutorul cititorilor. Mai departe este necesar膬 o continu膬 practic膬 pentru a ne putea 卯nsu葯i acest mod de g芒ndire.
脦ns膬 dincolo de faptul c膬 ghidul este foarte bine structurat, cu explica葲ii at芒t de logice 葯i limpezi 卯nc芒t pot fi accesibile tuturor, ceea ce este demn de admirat, din punctul meu de vedere, este atitudinea pe care o promoveaz膬 vis-a-vis de g芒ndirea critic膬: s膬 g芒nde葯ti critic nu 卯nseamn膬 s膬 fii nihilist 葯i s膬 negi totul sau s膬 ai o atitudine agresiv膬 fa葲膬 de interlocutor, ci 卯nseamn膬 s膬 fii dominat de curiozitate 葯i de o deschidere care te predispun s膬 卯mbr膬葲i葯ezi noi opinii atunci c芒nd ele sunt bine sus葲inute 葯i argumentate. Nimic mai adev膬rat ! Aceast膬 flexibilitate 卯n g芒ndire, aceast膬 deschidere fa葲膬 de idei noi 葯i curiozitatea promovate de autor sunt absolut necesare at芒t pentru evolu葲ia personal膬 a fiec膬rui om, c芒t 葯i pentru evolu葲ia noastr膬 ca societate. G芒ndirea critic膬 f膬r膬 aceste elemente tinde s膬 devin膬 nociv膬, la fel ca orice instrument folosit necorespunz膬tor 葯i f膬r膬 bune inten葲ii.
Well ... that was rubbish. Not only is this full of biases and horribly inappropriate "practice exercises" (many of which deal with various forms of human perversion), but also it is laboriously redundant and ultimately a gigantic waste of time. Basically, Biff Tannen will crash into a truckload of this book in Back to the Future, pt. 4. Several years ago, without reading it, I snagglepussed their list of "the right questions" for a class handout on critical thinking, supplementing the list with better context and purposes, and kept telling myself I would read the whole book some time and find out how I can make that handout better. Now I know: I can eliminate their list of "the right questions" and make up my own questions and completely eliminate all trace of this product from my classroom.
For these "authors," the two-fold purpose of "Critical Thinking " is a) to know for whom to vote and b) to know how to respond to advertisements. That is all. I'm not making this up; the book says that's why we need "critical thinking." Not for "how to become a worthwhile person," not for "how to make the world around us a better place or the people around us better people," not "to pursue truth and beauty and other affirming absolutes." No, just to know the right candidate (and it takes about four pages into the book to find out what political party the "authors" think is right) and how to say no to all advertisements (as if we didn't all know that by the age of 12 anyway). Yes, in the concluding fake final chapter reside some insincere "well, we're all in this together, so be sure to use your critical thinking skills to help others out" stuff, but we can all be fairly certain someone's grandfather who signed the paychecks way back in the 2nd edition days (back in the '90s, when all smart people knew Islam had run its course) required this and now it's just left over because it sounds all warm and sincere (or so they "think").
Now, not much wrong exists with the actual "right questions" themselves, yet the need for entire chapter-like things explaining them does not exist either. This could have worked much better without the "practice examples," the nonsensical repetition, and everything but the final "why is this question important" box. One easy indicator of how much piffle suffuses this work is the fact the creators decided to highlight the important notices by both demarcating the essential points with thick grey borders flanking the significant paragraphs and beginning said paragraphs with the emboldened word "Attention." One would suppose only one of these devices would be necessary to indicate the distinctively special nature of the material, but the authors chose both. And then they repeat themselves a lot. Thus, this would have been quite fine as a three-page pamphlet. Alas, the authors decided the route of horridly overpriced textbook instead of concise, useful pamphlet. Alas.
One could also mention the repletion of contradictions throughout: after redundantly explaining how important the "right question" under evaluation in each individual chapter is, the authors will often prepare you for the conclusion of the chapter (and the wretchedly off-putting practical examples) with "yes, but, sometimes it's not like that, so do your best to make sure when the right time to ask this right question is right."
One final concern about this (aside from the concern about their comments to the effect "emotions should never play a role in any decision"): the authors adamantly warn us against thinking in dichotomies. On the surface, of course, this sounds like good advice. Who can fault Pink Floyd for enjoining us against thinking in terms of "us and them"? The concern rests, though, in their outlandish declaration "never think in terms of right and wrong." Because this is a dichotomy, it must be the wrong (irrational) way of making decisions and viewing the world. Everything that is good must have more than two options. And on and on. I'd say it's rubbish, but that would be an insult to banana peels, cockroach husks, and last month's wheat thins, and I don't want to insult them.
Don't waste your time. It's a short work, but life's too short for this work.