In this course, you will learn how to develop your Critical Thinking Skills to help you achieve success in your university studies. After completing this course, you will be able to: 1. Use critical thinking and argumentation in university contexts to improve academic results 2. Understand the importance and function of critical thinking in academic culture 3. Use a variety of thinking tools to improve critical thinking 4. Identify types of argument, and bias within arguments, in order to better evaluate the strength of arguments 5. Use evidence to support claims in arguments 6. Apply critical thinking and argumentation to real world problems and issues
4.2b Identifying Biases and Assumptions 2
Loading...
From the course by The University of Sydney
Critical Thinking Skills for University Success
12 оценки
The University of Sydney
12 оценки
Course 3 of 5 in the Specialization Academic Skills for University Success
From the lesson
Argumentation
Meet the Instructors
Katherine OlstonDeputy Director (Digital Learning)
University of Sydney Centre for English Teaching
Luke AlexanderAcademic Literacy Instructor and MOOC Learning Instructor
Centre for English Teaching
[MUSIC]
Over the last few lessons, we've identified what the difference between
claims and evidence is, and then looked at what biases and assumptions are.
In this lesson, we'll look at how biases and assumptions can emerge in and
can be discovered through the way reality is represented.
The way the relationship between the writer and reader is established.
And the way in which the argument is presented and
its relationship to knowledge.
In the next lesson, we'll consider how biases and assumptions
are disguised in the broader features of the text and the context it appears in.
So how do biases and assumptions shape the way reality is represented?
Firstly, the topics we might make an argument about are usually quite complex.
So any argument is going to involve making choices about which elements are most
important.
This is perhaps the main way bias creeps into an argument,
by simply not representing all sides.
Let's take a look at an argument now and see if it is biased.
The text is biased towards management, but why?
In this text there is no representation of what the union
thought about the negotiations or their reasons for the pay dispute.
The text only represents what the management thought of the negotiations and
the market reactions.
After reading or seeing arguments such as these,
we need to think what's being excluded?
And is it important?
We don't have both sides of the issue.
So it's not neutral nor objective and is therefore biased.
There are other ways that biases are evident in arguments.
Take for example the following claim.
Bombs were dropped on the capital city Mogkadad.
What important information has been hidden in this sentence?
The author of this sentence has decided to obscure who dropped the bombs.
This was hidden in language using what's called a passive sentence.
And there are a number of ways in which this can be done in English.
Take the following sentence as another example.
The bombing of Mogkadad significantly disrupted the infrastructure.
Here, again, who exactly did the bombing has been hidden
along with any mention of civilian casualties.
Thus, language is the second way that biases can hidden in an argument.
One final way in which biases and assumptions can be used to misrepresent
the world is with false classification schemes.
These areas are often termed false dichotomies and are everyday examples of
the fallacies with disjunctive logic structures we identified in module three.
An infamous example of this is President Bush's quote.
Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists.
Here Bush sets up a very limiting classification scheme,
putting the nations of the world into two camps.
However, it's possible to be opposed to both terrorism and US foreign policy.
So far we've looked at biases and
assumptions in the way that a text represents the world.
Equally significant though,
is the way in which a text manages the relationship between writer and reader.
This can be done to manipulate the reader into believing an argument presented
without due cause.
One obvious way to do this is through the use of emotive language and
through attacking people rather than their arguments.
Also called an ad hominem.
Take the following example.
Mayor Smith's plan to increase social housing will be a dreadful burden
on the taxpayers of this city, and is yet another example of a politician who is
bereft of ideas and appealing to populist impulses.
Here, the use of terms like dreadful burden
are clearly designed to elicit an emotional response.
And labeling the mayor as bereft of ideas is clearly an ad hominem attack.
This might also take the form of making things seem more important with words like
the most important or greatest idea.
Or less important with words like just or simply.
As an example of this, take the following statement.
The most important thing to remember is that homeless people are simply too lazy
to find work.
Another more subtle form of manipulating the relationship between reader and
writer is positioning the reader within the same in-group.
Take the following example.
No matter the outcome of the upcoming vote on housing policy,
we as Asrelicans will continue to be concerned with rising housing prices and
the associated increase in homelessness.
Here, the writer appeals to a shared national identity as Asrelicans to draw
the reader to accept their conclusions about homelessness and housing policy.
This can be frequently spotted through the use of words like we and our.
Lastly, assumptions and
biases can be seen in the way in which an argument is presented and
its relationship to knowledge, logical connections, for example.
And the use of common sense or ideologies can often hide assumptions and biases.
Take this example.
Widow Smith's neighbour Henry Collins said that she appeared to
him in several nightmares.
As a result, she was convicted of witchcraft and burned at the stake.
In this case, the use of the term as a result according to Fairclough
signals that the expected happened.
Now, this argument is ridiculous to most people.
We question what the relationship between appearing in someone's nightmares and
being a witch is.
How is that the expected conclusion?
The evidence doesn't add up.
Secondly, we question why being a witch necessarily
leads to being burned at the stake.
However, this kind of argument didn't seem so ridiculous in 1692,
during the Salem Witch Trials.
Here's another more recent example.
The homeless man was refused a job even though he was highly qualified.
In this case, the assumption is that being highly qualified for
a job means you should get it.
The use of the term even though as Fairclough suggests, signals that
what would be expected to happen, given the assumption, failed to happen.
Another way that assumptions and
biases hide in arguments is through the use of certain or definitive language.
Certain or definitive language is language that does not hedge and
instead uses words like proves or definitely.
This kind of language according to Cottrell, suggests that the argument is so
obvious that there's no need to evaluate it.
This is the difference between saying something like
being homeless can lead to an increased chance of drug addiction and
being homeless naturally leads to drug addiction.
This has an impact on the difference between every day and
academic argumentation.
As we know, academics will usually hedge their language, and
rarely ever use a word like prove.
However, the same can not be said for every day argumentation.
Particularly the kind found online or
in newspapers, which favors more certain language.
This creates bias, because arguments in newspapers or
on blogs can sound stronger and more definite and provide solid answers.
Arguments in academic research,
however, are hedged, meaning they can sound weak in comparison.
However, being aware of the differences and difficulties is the first step
in being able to identify them and really think critically about the arguments.
With all of these, there are two questions to ask.
The first is, what is being excluded, hidden and why?
Check if there is another point of view or
another perspective to look at the question from.
The second question is to ask, what is the evidence?
You then use the tools we discussed in the claims and evidence,
your knowledge of your field, and your own intuition to come
to a conclusion regarding the evidence and the argument itself.
Good luck!
[MUSIC]
Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом
Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.
Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.
© Coursera Inc., 2018 Все права защищены.
