Halo effect: first recognize a positive or negative characteristic of a person, and then associate this characteristic with everything else about the person

Belief perseverance: The tendency to persist in one's beliefs. Belief fixation is an important cause of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias: the tendency to only regard as reliable evidence evidence that fast fish proves all of our beliefs. This results in weak critical thinking.

Availability heuristic: refers to the mental shortcuts we use repeatedly to form conclusions based only on the information most readily available at hand, rather than expending energy to obtain and process additional information. Closely connected to the recency effect, it refers to the information that is easiest to use when we think, which is often the latest information we see.

The answer is not what the question was asked: When someone asks a question, we immediately answer it without thinking. It is often easy to answer the question. Maybe we substitute our own problems for someone else’s.

Be broad-minded and cover a wide range of topics, providing a basis for understanding assumptions from multiple perspectives.

Base decisions on reasons and evidence

Be receptive to other people's beliefs but question whether there is strong support for the belief

Force yourself to seek and respect multiple ways of thinking about the truth about your claims.

When is a conclusion accurate?

Where is the conclusion accurate?

Why or for what purpose the conclusion is accurate

Time and space constraints: There is not enough time to organize the argument, or there is not enough time and space to complete the argument.

Attention time limit: the argument must be completed as quickly as possible in a short period of time

The arguer’s knowledge is incomplete

to deliberately deceive

The arguer has different values, beliefs, and attitudes than you do

Ask questions to help determine what additional information is needed

Ask questions to find that information

Data source is unknown – find out the source of the data

Is the mean the mean, median or mode? ——Understand the numerical range and numerical distribution

measurement error

The conclusion supported by the data is not the same as the conclusion that needs to be proved - regardless of the data used by the author, compare the required statistical evidence with the actual data provided; draw direct conclusions from the data. If the conclusion drawn is inconsistent with the author's conclusion, there is probably something wrong with the argument.

Deception by omitting data – determine what information is missing, especially simultaneous comparisons of sizes and percentages

Can you find other ways to interpret this evidence?

What other factors might trigger this behavior or lead to these findings?

If you look at it from another perspective, what factors might be considered important reasons?

If this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretations could make sense?

An event is most likely the product of a combination of factors

Different people may have completely different reasons for performing the same behavior

logically reasonable

Consistency with other knowledge learned

Rate of success in explaining or predicting similar events

The degree to which a large number of accepted facts support an explanation compared to other explanations

Is a cause not supported by very few accepted beliefs?

Compared with other explanations, its effectiveness in explaining a large number and variety of facts

Personal observations are not necessarily reliable. What we “see” and say is what remains after being filtered through a set of values, biases, attitudes, past experiences, past training, and expectations. What we see and hear is what we want to see and hear, and what we remember is often those aspects that are most consistent with past experiences and backgrounds.

The most reliable ones are recent observations, the results of simultaneous observations by several people in the best environment.

Wording deviation: Different wording of questions will have a significant impact on the answers.

Contextual bias: Answers will be affected by how the questionnaire is presented and how the questionnaire is embedded in the survey (for example, a previous question will affect the answer to a later question). Questionnaire length also has an impact, with responses at the end of a longer questionnaire likely to be very different from responses at the front.

Characteristics (Advantages) of Scientific Method

Shortcomings of the scientific method

Fallacy of forced certainty: Believing that a research conclusion should be discarded if it is not 100% certain.

Some clues for evaluating scientific research

Can sampling generalize about the whole?

Limitations of turning to experts

There are strong and weak facts, and there are different possibilities. The high probability that everyone will experience the same thing is a measure of how certain and reliable a given fact is.

This assertion is an unquestionable attempt

This assertion follows from a watertight argument

When the assertion is well supported by reasons supported by evidence

personal experience

Typical cases

Testimonials: quotes from specific parties, especially celebrities, to prove that extraordinary things did happen and are based on their personal experiences.

authority or expert opinion

personal observation

Research results

analogy

mental checklist

independent decision-making

curiosity

Courteous and courteous

Genuinely respect rigorous argumentation

1.Ask what the topic is

2. Look for indicator words

3. Look where possible

4. Remember what the conclusion is not

5. Check the communication context and author background

as a result of

studies show studies show

because of the fact that

for the reason that

is supported by

because the evidence is

clear and interesting question

Focused, clearly stated conclusions

Conclusions that are supported by reasons and evidence that most people would find convincing

Conclusion that responds to the topic

Make it easy for readers to find conclusions

When you receive a piece of writing or speaking that is not stated in a specific form, reframe it into a question. Think of the topic as one question and two questions, and be able to concentrate or use it in an easy-to-understand form to let readers or the public understand that you are troubled by a certain question and have nothing to do with other issues.

The question must inspire the audience to think and be interesting to everyone.

Make sure our conclusions are on topic, clearly stated, and easy to find.

The conclusion should not only answer the question, but also be supported by strong reasons and evidence.

1. Indicative words

2. Researched and focused topics

3. Clarify the reasons supporting the conclusion

4. The article has a reasonable structure and clear layout

Put your argument in a prompt, or restate it in different words at the end.

Make sure each reason answers a why.

demonstrative word

Abstract: The further a word is from a specific, concrete instance, the more abstract it becomes.

If I were in the opposite position to the writer, would I define this term in the same way?

obstacles to overcome

If two or more explanations can be found, it means that the word is ambiguous.

Find key words or phrases in the thesis and conclusion, and define and explain them

Find key words or phrases in the rationale and define and explain them

Identify abstract words in core arguments. The more abstract a word is, the more we need to clarify it

Ask: “How might those who disagree with me define these terms differently to support their own arguments?”

Hidden or unspoken

arguer takes it for granted

Have a greater influence on the conclusion (necessary for the reasons leading to a particular conclusion)

may be deceptive

between reason and conclusion

Reasons

The context and facts relevant to an argument influence people's loyalty to a value preference. (Values ​​will change as the situation changes)

Examples of typical values ​​conflicts

How to find values?

The person making the argument should explain why the reader or audience should accept such value assumptions.

Think about the gap between conclusions and reasons

Looking for unstated thoughts that support reasons

Put yourself in the shoes of the writer or speaker

Put yourself in the shoes of the naysayers

We might have the same values, but ranked them differently

Identify value preferences

Argument and context determine how we rank values

Ad hominem fallacy: Refers to making a personal attack on an individual without directly refuting the reasons provided.

Narrative Fallacy: Wrongly assuming that "because we can tell a story that seems to explain a series of unfolding facts, we recognize all the connections between facts and phenomena."

Slippery Slope Fallacy: Assuming that taking a course will trigger a chain of uncontrollable adverse events, when in fact there are procedures in place to prevent such a chain of events.

Perfect Solution Fallacy: The erroneous belief that if a solution is tried and there are still unresolved problems, then the solution should not be adopted at all.

Appeal to the Public Fallacy: Attempting to justify an assertion by citing that many people hold that opinion. It is a mistake to assume that something that many people support is desirable.

Appeal to Questionable Authority Fallacy: To prove a conclusion by quoting an authority who has no special expertise on the topic.

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy: Using emotionally charged language to distract the reader or listener from relevant reasons and evidence. Emotions that are often exploited are: fear, hope, patriotism, pity, and empathy. [Commonly used in advertising, political debates and court debates]

Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresenting the other party’s point of view to make it vulnerable to attack, and then attacking a point of view that does not actually exist.

False Dilemma Fallacy: Pretending that there are only two choices when there are more than two choices in reality.

The hating fallacy: The mistaken belief that because you give a name to a specific event or behavior, you have a legitimate explanation for it. (Negative labeling)

Planning Fallacy: People or organizations tend to underestimate how long it will take them to complete a task, despite past experience showing that they have consistently underestimated how long it will take to complete something.

Whitewashing fallacy: Using vague, emotionally powerful words to describe character makes us tend to agree with something without examining the reasons for it. (opposite of the hating fallacy)

Red herring fallacy: Inserting an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original argument in order to win the argument by shifting attention from the current argument to another argument. The sequence of fallacies is as follows: 1. Topic A is being discussed; 2. Topic B is introduced as if it is related to topic A, but in fact the two are unrelated; 3. Topic A is ignored.

Circular Argument Fallacy: An argument in which one assumes that one's own conclusion is true. For example, rephrase the argument and use the conclusion as a reason.