Critical thinking is an important skill at the core of any academic and professional endeavor—a bedrock of all disciplines. Critical thinking requires creativity as much as rationalization to resolve problems, formulate solutions, communicate results, and interpret the findings of others.

The foundational and integral nature of critical thinking means improving our ability to do better in life. When our ability to think critically is stifled—through food insecurity, defunded education, poor health, poor working conditions—we become victims of our own ignorance.

The Anatomy of an Argument

Arguments appear in every discussion involving opposing perspectives—such as halls of justice, research efforts, construction sites, and classrooms—but we don’t mean a shouting match. An argument is a set of premises, evidence or supporting statements, that support conclusions, a given claim that is being proven. All arguments must be structured to be both valid, a true premise implying a true conclusion, and sound, valid with true premises. An example of validity can be observed in the following claim:

“All birds fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins fly.”

We see that the argument is valid in its reasoning that penguins are birds, thus, they must be able to fly, however, we know that in the real world, they can’t fly—the premise is valid, but false. A sound argument, such as the following, is an example of a statement that is valid as well as true:

All humans need water. You’re human. Therefore, you need water.

Types of Arguments

There are a few different forms an argument can take, each with different degrees of variation in direct correlation and implication. The first type of arguments are known as deductive arguments, whose truth of the premises inherently validates the conclusion’s truth, though the arguments become rather circular. Inductive and abductive arguments make the conclusions more likely, but still not certain.

Inductive arguments utilize observations of past instances and regularities as the basis for future predictions. The more evidence is conducted, the more likely the conclusion is.

Abductive arguments center around the observation of relevant facts as the basis for a conclusion to explain the observation. This approach is more in-line with scientific practices.

Logical Fallacies

In exploring the real and digital landscape, we will inevitably encounter a wide array of logical fallacies, arguments that appear legitimate but are not. These arguments emerge from those who either unintentionally introducing fallacies into the discussion or intentionally desire to mislead you. A long list of fallacy types exist, but there are a few that are most common:

  • False Equivalence: When someone leverages the lack of a term or phrase’s clarity to draw a conclusion.

  • Begging the Question: When the conclusion of an argument is the same proposition as a premise that is phrased differently.

  • Appeal to Authority: When an authority is referenced rather than providing reason and logic as support.

  • Ad Hominem: Attacking a person’s traits rather than the arguments themselves.

  • False Analogy: Using an analogy that lacks sufficient similarity to the topic as an argument.

  • Strawman: Exaggerates and misrepresents the original claim to make it easier to refute.

  • Hasty Generalization: Using a select and small sample size to ignore contradictory research and studies.

Evaluating Sources

Verifying the validity of a source is arguably one of the most important elements of researching a given topic. Research the author to see if they are credible—a PhD in biology writing about vaccines is more credible than a marketing executive.

Next, ensure the source is reliable—a peer reviewed and fact-checked Nature journal publication is more reliable than a podcast discussion.

Don’t be afraid to cross-reference the information with other reliable sources and publications.

Finally, look for any bias, hidden motives, funder information, etc to gain insight into possible conflicts of interest.

Argumentation in Practice

Putting these concepts into practice is easier said than done, as the world is incredibly messy, made worse by individuals who have a wide array of tools to deliberately have discussions in bad faith. Fallacies are an important tool in their arsenal, but another is optics—whether that’s language designed to lead others towards a conclusion, putting an emphasis on stoicism and civility, or believing their worldview is the default.

Leading language is meant to be subjective with no regard to validity or truth with the goal of leading our opinions towards a conclusion without thinking critically. An effective method to address this language is to reflect on the source’s intent and whether specific words or phrases elicit a specific emotion.

There is a common practice among adversarial individuals to overly-emphasize lack of emotion and civility as a sign of intellect, yet there is no logical or scientific backing to this notion. Emotion and lack of civility in the face of unjust and harmful discussions is natural. It’s worth noting there is no civility in posing that any humans don’t deserve human rights.

Discussions are meant to be cooperative, not adversarial, if we want to help our communities progress and grow together.

Review Questions

  • What is critical thinking?

  • Why is it important?

  • How can it be stifled?

  • Define argument and explain what they consist of.

  • All arguments must be both ________ and ________.

  • What are the three types of arguments?

  • True or false: logical fallacies are sound arguments.

  • Name and describe at least three fallacies.

  • What are some characteristics of a reliable source?